Tuesday, February 07, 2006

NYTimes on Sex Trade: Wrong In Ways Minor And Big

Rather than just reviewing tonight's Frontline episode on the sex slave industry, the New York Times begins with gratuitous, silly slams against "feminist pundits" in the US who are concerned only with body image and nannies and dating rather than something important like the horrors of sex slavery. It's a paper tiger, of course, since you'd be hard pressed to find any pundits -- feminist or otherwise -- who think nannies are a more urgent issue than women being sold into slavery. It's as if the NYT is so afraid of being labeled liberal (which it is), that it has to take cheap shots at the left. One might disparage the NYT for downplaying the sex slavery issue by using it as an excuse to attack pundits. Are pundits -- however wrongheaded -- more important than the sex slavery trade? Of course not. To top it off, monkeyboy points out that the victim Katia referred to throughout the story is renamed Tania at the very end in a sloppy, lazy mistake.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

You don't really read the NYT for thoughtful criticism , do you? Silly boy.

Ed Sikov said...

Of course Heffernan fails to name a single feminist pundit who takes the absurd position she uses as her lead sentence. Idiot.

Ed Sikov said...

"the victim Katia referred to throughout the story is renamed Tania at the very end"

Just like Patty Hearst!

Michael in New York said...

Welcome back, Ed.