‘The unarticulated question raised by the New York Times article is…’

Except I’ve got a different one than Richard Fernandez.

The New York Times wrote this article based on one man’s public bankruptcy filing.

They asked him to comment and he said no. I don’t blame him.

But… they just went ahead and wrote about him anyhow because he “represents” some trend, real or imaginary?

Yes, I know all about the media’s need to ferret out (or create if necessary) “trends.” I’ve written about this before, and so have lots of people.

That’s not what struck me.

It was the NYT’s seemingly random choice of “profile-ee.”

Did this guy break a law? Do something noteworthy in public lately, a la Joe the Plumber?

Not from what I read in the article.

So we just pick people’s court documents at random and write about them in the NYT now?

I shared these questions with a friend who replied, “Maybe the ex-wife is hooked up with the NYT reporter…?”

Seriously: Isn’t this creepy and pointless, whoever it happens to be about?


Comments are closed.