This is how. Here is a three-page article describing a Japanese sub-culture where grown men buy large pillowcovers printed with life-size images of anime girls – “girls” in this context meaning “children” – in various to complete states of undress, because these men have apparently fallen in love with them. Some of these men consumate their love of these child-surrogate pillows.
What proves that the NYT had completely jumped the journalistic rails is that in three pages, the words “crazy” and “insane” never appear. Nor “lunatic” or “nutjob” or “whackadoodle.”
Dude. Dude.
Trust me, I know what it’s like to not exactly be spectacularly lucky with da wimmins, but come the hell on. Man the hell up and have some friggen’ dignity. Die alone like a man.
8 Responses to “You know how I know that the New York Times sucks?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
>Die alone like a man.
Or at least, don’t talk to reporters.
But I don’t see this as reflecting on the Times. After all, is it really necessary the reporter COMMENT on this story? Don’t the facts speak for themselves?
> After all, is it really necessary the reporter COMMENT on this story?
No “opinion” would be needed. Just talk to a shrink for the story, get some sort of explanation for what’s wrong with these freaks. You know, get the *whole* story.
>get some sort of explanation for what’s wrong with these freaks.
You mean, like the last paragraph on the first page:
According to many who study the phenomenon, the rise of 2-D love can be attributed in part to the difficulty many young Japanese have in navigating modern romantic life. According to a government survey, more than a quarter of men and women between the ages of 30 and 34 are virgins; 50 percent of men and women in Japan do not have friends of the opposite sex. One of the biggest best sellers in the country last year was “Health and Physical Education for Over Thirty,” a six-chapter, manga-illustrated guidebook that holds the reader’s hand from the first meeting to sex to marriage.
No, that’s not really it. People have been having trouble “navigating modern romantic life” for a little short of forever. But actually falling in love with a *pillow* is a special form of crazy that’s not explained by simply having trouble with the opposite sex.
Yeah, but
>more than a quarter of men and women between the ages of 30 and 34 are virgins; 50 percent of men and women in Japan do not have friends of the opposite sex.
denotes a society in which those folks are not simply “having trouble with teh opposite sex.” To me, the society seems by definition already nuts. What particular sort of nuttiness arises therefrom is…well, sort of to be expected. Mind you, I’m not saying falling in love with something inanimate (pillow or — eventually — sexbot) isn’t way WAY beyond the pale…but I don’t know that finding a shrink to speak learnedly about it would have really added to the story…or to the apparent quality of the Times’ coverage thereof.
> To me, the society seems by definition already nuts.
Well, yeah… it’s *Japan.* How can the nation that gave the world tentacle porn *not* be clinically bugnuts?
> I don’t know that finding a shrink to speak learnedly about it would have really added to the story
My point is this: it you write an 3-page article about murderers comitting murder… you’re demonstrating some weird bias if you never use the word “murder.” Similarly, a 3-page article about someone falling in romatic love with a pillow calls out for “nutjob” at some point in the text.
>Similarly, a 3-page article about someone falling in romatic love with a pillow calls out for “nutjob” at some point in the text.
Why? We’re agreed that anyone who reads the piece and doesn’t think “these folks are nuts” is, themselves, nuts. In what way is a “bias” implied by the Times not making this quite obvious statement in a news piece which is not on the editorial page (where judgement and opinion of news and events are called for). Doesn’t “lack of bias” equate to expressing NO judgement…rather than expressing the “correct” judgement?
To put it more succinctly — and I’m NOT trying to pull your chain here — the piece seems to follow the principle of “we report — YOU decide.” What am I missing?