Write your comment in the form below. Be sure to 'Preview' your comment to make sure that it will appear as you want it to.
You Are Replying To This Comment:
Re: But..
By jsingal
Sep 24th 2007
at 12:43 am EDT
(Updated
Sep 24th 2007 at 12:47 am EDT)
Fair enough. I've lived in Manhattan a couple times and I probably should have been clearer in my critique (and that average salary number is pushed up hugely by Wall Street, as the article I linked to mentions). Stated more specifically, my problem with the Times is that it obsessively caters to the upper-crust.
In other words, the fact that Manhattan is a very rich place on average (and it is -- it's gotten to the point where most of its neighborhoods are unaffordable to the vast majority of Americans) is only part of the problem; plenty of blame should go to the paper itself and what it sees as its priorities when it comes to lifestyle reporting. The editorial stance seems to be, more or less, that rich people are fascinating and that their lives are worthy of endless inches of column space. Especially in a world capital-type place like NYC -- a city where an almost baffling decrease in crime and runaway gentrification have led to monumental changes in the past 25 years or so -- shouldn't there be more pressing lifestyle issues to cover?
I know it's not productive or original for me to get annoyed at the New York Times's ridiculously elitist tendencies, but, still, this article about the realities of women "dating down" (women in their 20s now make more than men of the same age, on average, in cities like New York, Chicago, Boston, and Minneapolis) really took it too far.
Yes, the piece does make some good points about how men and women are expected to react to having money. But the interesting sociological observations are drowned out by stuff like this:
Ms. Rowland, like some other women interviewed, said that she has come to the conclusion that it would be easier to date someone in the same economic bracket.
“I love traveling, going to the opera and good restaurants,” she said. “It doesn’t have to be Per Se, but good food is important in my life. It’s sometimes hard to maintain the lifestyle I’m used to when I’m in a relationship with a guy who makes less than me, since I don’t want to be paying for the guy I’m with all the time.”
That's rough. Good luck with that. I think my fundamental problem with the Times is that I forget that, despite the fact that it's considered a national paper, when it comes to lifestyle reporting it's still catering to New York City and Manhattan in particular -- a Never-Never Land where the average salary is over $75,500.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
!
In other words, the fact that Manhattan is a very rich place on average (and it is -- it's gotten to the point where most of its neighborhoods are unaffordable to the vast majority of Americans) is only part of the problem; plenty of blame should go to the paper itself and what it sees as its priorities when it comes to lifestyle reporting. The editorial stance seems to be, more or less, that rich people are fascinating and that their lives are worthy of endless inches of column space. Especially in a world capital-type place like NYC -- a city where an almost baffling decrease in crime and runaway gentrification have led to monumental changes in the past 25 years or so -- shouldn't there be more pressing lifestyle issues to cover?