Today’s scan of RSS feeds turned up this gem from the Wall Street Journal:
“The slip — once an all-purpose weapon against visible panty lines and clingy dresses — has lost its usefulness for many reasons. Christina Binkley believes that the end of slips coincides with a diminished sense of modesty.”
As if it were a bad thing. Binkley doesn’t explicitly state her own opinion, though the opening of the article’s fourth paragraph implies a faint disdain for ever-loosening morals:
“It seems that slips sort of went the same way that virginity went,” says Karen Nelson, a 57-year-old expat American who recently moved to Uruguay.
Suggesting that, what, moving to Uruguay is somehow related to approval of virginity and petticoats? WTF? In what way is this woman’s recent relocation relevant to the story? Couldn’t Binkley find a US resident to spout fallacious logic? Or perhaps the exotic locale confers some sort of worldly wisdom on Nelson’s comments — in which case, why not seek quotes from an actual foreigner?
A sidebar on the article’s web page invites you to discuss the matter on the WSJ’s Front Lines blog (“news, issues and trends concerning women”):
“If you consider that we can tell a lot about a society from its underwear, what does the disappearance of the slip say about us?”
Well we might ask. I’m still mourning the decline of the corset, the bustle and foot-binding.
This isn’t an isolated occurrence. Here are two more examples of WSJ’s recent excellence in commentary and opinion-leadership:
- why George W Bush is like Batman (thanks, Paul) in which Andrew Klavan says there is “no question that the Batman film ‘The Dark Knight,’ …is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W Bush…”
- an op-ed piece in which James Kieran remarks that “Just as it is far easier to publish stories without verifying the sources; so is it much more convenient to practice yellow science than the real thing.” Kieran himself names no verified sources for his contentions about climate change. (thanks, Talking Squid)
Eighteen months ago, Journal staff were striking in protest about Murdoch’s takeover. “This is about preserving the quality and integrity of The Wall Street Journal…” said union boss Steven Yount at the time. Among the agreements that sealed the takeover the deal was the establishment of an “independent editorial board to protect the paper from interference.” One wonders why they bothered.
0 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.