June 13, 2014

Look how far the NYT has gone merging editorial and advertising content.

Here's a screen capture from the NYT front page:



See the "paid post"? That goes to a story with the headline "Women Inmates: Why the Male Model Doesn’t Work/As the number of women inmates soars, so does the need for policies and programs that meet their needs."

There's a little "Netflix" emblem over the headline, along with the words "Paid Post," and the font is different from the usual editorial content, but it's an article that's like other NYT articles, inviting us to be concerned about the higher number of women in prison these days and to empathize with their distinctively female problems:
At the most basic level, women often must make do with jumpsuits that are made from men’s designs rather than being cut for female bodies. And standard personal-care items often don’t account for different skin tones or hair types.

It’s not just vanity: What drives some prisoners to mix their own makeup or tailor their uniforms is the need to maintain their dignity in a situation that does little to protect it.
If you slog through enough of that, you'll get to the pitch to stream new episodes of the Netflix show "Orange Is the New Black."

19 comments:

Marty said...

This is a common internet advertising trick used by, among others, NRO

Ambrose said...

They could just put an Amazon box on their site and ask their readers to use it to buy stuff that they were going to buy anyway. That would be more noble.

Skyler said...

Skin tone? Hair color? Is make up a civil right now? They're prisoners! Shouldn't it be required that they not wear makeup and have ill fitting clothing?

glenn said...

Actually I'm thinking all the prison inmates male and female should be getting acquainted with subsistence farming. Just so they aren't a burden to the taxpayers. Don't like growing your own food, go hungry.

Jupiter said...

Jill Abramson would never have allowed it.

Chuck said...

You fooled me with this one.

I thought that the paid advertising was the NEA-sponsored story/op-ed on how replacing low-performing unionized teachers won't benefit their students. But no; that one is standard content in the New York Times. All part of the same Democrat messaging-machine.

SGT Ted said...

Headline should read "Look how far the NYT will go to defer and cater to women".

Jesus who gives a fuck about women prisoners make-up and prison garb? Oh the poor dears. There's no fashion or make up in the clink?

Is there no woman that the NYT won't try to cater to their desires? What a bullshit concern.

There should be zero concern for the "needs" for make-up and clothes. They're criminals.

The fucking NYT even wants us to cater to criminals, simply because they are women.

Their needs are to be housed, have clothing and medical care. The "male model" of prison? No, the ordinary model that treats all prisoners the same is the correct one.

No it isn't about "vanity", it's about always giving undue deference to whatever women claim their "needs" are in every area of life. Including the Joint.

Cheer up girls, you're equal to the men as you are, so you get the same consideration they do while in prison. Not much and that's the way it is supposed to be.

tim maguire said...

It’s not just vanity...[it's] the need to maintain their dignity...

A distinction without a difference.

Oso Negro said...

Because what else is "the world's greatest newspaper" going to write about? The bloody collapse of Iraq? The atrocity on our southern borders? Two fucking years of lost emails from Lois Lerner?

Derfel Cadarn said...

They are inmates their "needs" are determined by others and those needs are minimal. If more considerations are expected then not breaking the law is the best way to attain those goals.

Jason (the commenter) said...

I can finally understand the New York Times's business model. Drive off subscribers who might have read articles with a degree of skepticism, then be left with just the type of people advertisers are willing to pay money for.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Washington City Paper has a hilarious review of the show by an ex-con, which makes me believe the show is little more than sympathy porn.

campy said...

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

mezzrow said...

If one is to stand against the #waronwomen, one must concern oneself with the female victims of that war. Just one more brick in the wall from the "grey lady"...

St. George said...

Around about 1971 when an elderly farmer in Maine learned that Esquire magazine was going to allow the Xerox Corporation to publish in its editorial well a story fully controlled by Xerox (perhaps akin to a Hallmark Hall of Fame TV special), this farmer wrote a letter to the editor-in-chief of Esquire criticizing him.

Mortified, the editor published the irate farmer's letter, effectively ending Esquire's plan.

The farmer was E.B. White.

That was a long time ago.

Sam L. said...

Oso Negro said...

Because what else is "the world's greatest newspaper" going to write about? The bloody collapse of Iraq? The atrocity on our southern borders? Two fucking years of lost emails from Lois Lerner?
6/14/14, 7:21 AM

They need something/anything to fill the space of the news they won't print; doesn't fit their narrative.

Jupiter said...

"Is there no woman that the NYT won't try to cater to their desires? What a bullshit concern."

It is rather surprising to find the Times concerned about a group of people who, by virtue of their defining characteristic, cannot vote for a Democrat. But hey, Carlos Slim wants his money.

harkin said...

Firing bad teachers won't improve students' achievement?

What planet are these people from?

JoyD said...

I still subscribe to the NYT, and it's not as bad as the Washington Post. I've been cookied while shopping for swimsuits, and now those same swimsuits are BLINKING AT ME at the edge of my vision as I read a WaPo article. Now I will not buy the swimsuits from that retailer and I'm almost ready to cancel my subscription. That'll show 'em, right?