December 17, 2007

Times ombudsman enlisted in desperate attempt to boost readership of T magazine

alimichaelnude.jpg New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt gets all tsk-tsky about a photo spread of Ali Michael, "a 17-year-old model who looks younger," that ran in a recent edition of T, the paper's fashion supplement.

Hoyt demands to know "whether photographs of a semi-nude teenager with a certain Lolita quality to them are appropriate for the newspaper, regardless of their artistic merit."

Yeah, back off, T. That's my territory. (By the way, Ali's recent spread in W is less semi-nude but definitely more Lolita. Sadly, W does not have an ombudsman to complan to.)

I wasn't sure I needed to comment on this, but then Susannah Breslin pointed out that the URL for the online version of Clark's essay is http://www.nytimes.com /2007/12/16/opinion/16pubed.html.

Which is funny because the original title for T magazine was totally going to be 16 Pubed.

Posted by Daniel Radosh


Maybe YOUR Headline should read:

"Times photo controversy enlisted in blogger's desperate attempt to publish photo of topless teen (with no legal repercussions.)"

Wow. That W spread is like a horror movie waiting to happen.

Man, World-of-Warcraft elfporn has totally gone mainstream.

Al: It's blurry and hard to see, but I think she's wearing something. Foiled! ;)

As for topless teens with no legal repercussions, Netflix the 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet with Olivia Hussey in it.

Anon - or the 1978 Louis Malle film Pretty Baby, with Brooke Shields. Oh wait, she wasn't a teen, she was a pre-teen. Never mind.

It's amazing that people think society has become *more* permissive in the last 30 years.

16 Pubed lost its backers when 16 Shaved went on sale during the layout of the first issue.

I just looked at the W photos - not so much Lolita - more Alice in Wonderland

JohnnyB: six of one...

One pic makes you larger and one pic makes you a sexually precocious object of desire.

Post a comment

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2