<p>Now, you’re talking about slanted coverage which is quickly becoming the norm rather than the exception. But, it’s not untrue. These are questions of story selection or incomplete presentations of the facts. The facts are still the facts, though. This story falls into the fluff category for me. Basically it’s a harmless human interest piece. </p>
<p>I don’t understand why anyone is offended by this story. I am pretty sure that the real estate section is not included in versions of the Times that are sold outside the state. Real estate is a perennially interesting topic wherever you live. And most people are interested in seeing other people’s houses, particularly people who have particularly nice houses. I will admit that when I used to take my kids trick-or-treating years ago, we always made a detour to stop at a house that I loved, so that I could get a peek inside. Many of the stories in the real estate section, including “The Hunt”, are really stories about people. </p>
<p>Iglooo–the NYT only has a responsibility to its subscribers and its shareholders…and to the general public in the sense that it reports things truthfully and ethically.</p>
<p>However, it is not under any obligation to cover human interest stories that appeal to everyone. It has a strong base that is decidedly upper class oriented. It’s been like that in NYC forever. NYC readers can also buy the NYPost or Daily News. Those have their own target market and will adapt stories to more middle class interests. If you are not a New Yorker, you might not know this, but as a non-New Yorker, you might want to listen to what others have been trying to say who read the NYT on a regular basis.</p>
<p>It’s like saying that magazines should all report the same things and not have set markets. Do you expect the same article in People magazine and Town and Country?</p>
<p>The New York Post will only cover an expensive apartment if somebody is bloodily slain in it. Or maybe if it’s a love nest.</p>
<p>The Post and the News are much less comprehensive in their coverage of what goes on in NYC. Even though the Times’ circulation skews more upscale, it is much more the Newspaper of Record.</p>
<p>Oh, I thought I could hold NYT to a higher standard since it is so upscale.Not just meet minimum ethical obligation but go beyond. I could dream…</p>
<p>I love People magazine.</p>
<p>Igloo - What’s minimum ethical obligation? Writing sensational stories to keep the masses entertained?</p>
<p>Unless it’s the news pages it’s all entertainment or maybe info-tainment. A couple’s house hunting story is not news. But I agree with those who wonder what’s offensive about it. Personally I would never pick up the sports page or the food section, either. But, I don’t mind a bit if people want to read about the nuances of the latest spice or kitchen gadget or whatever. </p>
<p>I read the sports section of our paper first! To each his own, which is why this thread is sort of bizarre.</p>
<p>@Iglooo, I suggest you read this superb series before you take the NYT to task for ignoring the poor:</p>
<p><a href=“Invisible Child: Dasani’s Homeless Life - The New York Times”>Invisible Child: Dasani’s Homeless Life - The New York Times;
<p>^^ I highly recommend this series.</p>
<p>from the article</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t help but observe, disregarding the ridiculous language use of “whims”, that if the city hadn’t been following policies for decades that drove out thousands of middle class taxpayers and jobs, it perhaps would have a tax base that wasn’t almost entirely dependent on “the wealthy”. </p>
<p>Years ago I was in a cab complaining about the city’s policies and the cabbie put it succinctly… “the city needs taxpayers”. A simple observation that many governments ought to embrace, especially when they take a look at who wants to come, and who wants to leave. </p>
<p>Well. I’ll observe that the series is written for the wealthy, presumably to inform them that the poor exist. Which is a little sad and kinda strange, too.</p>
<p>Oh, come on Flossy. It isn’t written for “the wealthy,” it is written for the literate public. And everyone know the poor exist. This series was written to illuminate the situation that many poor families find themselves in <em>despite</em> the safety net. It’s not something one can divine from seeing children in a playground or a mother and child walking down the street.</p>
<p>A lot of people who don’t happen to know someone in this situation might think that things had been pretty much sorted out since the era of welfare hotels. They wouldn’t know that there are so many people living in limbo. </p>
<p>“Maybe they should. They will have a broader reader base. How many people are there in the upper class? To quote Warren Buffet, how many pairs of pants can a weathy man wear?”</p>
<p>Igloo, have you ever actually read either the NYT or the WSJ? While one has a liberal bent and the other has a conservative bent, they are both a) well respected, factual newspapers with top of the line reporting and b) newspapers that offer a lot of lifestyle features (restaurants, real estate, clothing, luxury vacations, etc.). </p>
<p>If they wanted to appeal to “the common man,” they’d be like the Chicago SunTimes, which is kind of the ultimate South Side blue collar hey-dere paper. They don’t want to be that. Why should they? </p>
<p>Actually, since Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ, its become a bit of a rag sheet.</p>
<p>Im not sure why blue collar workers are considered to be more " common" than an office worker.
I’m also not sure why someone who works with their hands is expected to be uneducated.
Albeit, our cities median income for families is $91,000 and more people over 25 have a bachelor degree than do not.</p>
<p>“A lot of people who don’t happen to know someone in this situation might think that things had been pretty much sorted out since the era of welfare hotels. They wouldn’t know that there are so many people living in limbo.”</p>
<p>Well, that was basically my point despite the semantic nuances. </p>
<p>dadx, the jobs that went away were manufacturing and clerical jobs. How could the city keep its manufacturing base? How could the U.S. keep its manufacturing base? And even if it did, would they still hire 10 people to do what one machine can do now? Likewise office jobs: no more secretary called into the boss’s office with her steno pad, then to her Underhill or Remington typewriter to transcribe it with 5 carbon copies. No more, long gone.</p>