Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Gray Lady Goes Cougar, Flashes Nipple and Tattoo!

A new low above the fold for The New York Times.

Ed Driscoll


November 30, 2013 - 10:00 am

No links for such attention whoring, but you if you’d like to see what the modicum of fuss is about, click over to the Daily Caller’s Betsy Rothstein as she checks out “The Grey Lady’s Nip Slip,” complete with (slightly NSFW) photo:

You’d think these things would be reserved for HuffPost’s sideboob section or even a Daily Caller slideshow.

But no, this is The New York Times just a few days before Thanksgiving. There are other ways to depict the delicate subject matter of breast-cancer screening than boob shots in the world’s most respected newspaper, right?

And — unexpectedly! — the Times is reduced to pretending that it was all ever-so “unintentional:”

The above-the-fold front-page photo, by Israeli photographer Rina Castelnuovo, accompanies a story about Israeli women grappling with one of the world’s highest rates of breast cancer. It shows a woman’s torso replete with a Star of David tattoo, a lumpectomy scar, and, yes, a bit of areola…

Castelnuovo tells Daily Intelligencer that she didn’t set out to be provocative. “It was an unplanned moment,” she told us in an e-mail. “I was taking the young woman’s portrait and we were chatting about her cancer and the scars.” The inclusion of the areola, she said, was “not intentional.”

In precisely the same way that Martin Bashir’s scatology festival last week was an unplanned moment for NBC’s subsidiary network — which just happened to be pre-scripted and loaded into the teleprompter for their anchor to read. The Times’ front page is one of the most heavily edited and controlled news environments on the planet; nothing gets there by accident. Today’s train wreck was simply the Times‘ effort at recreating the controversy that Time-Warner-CNN-HBO hoped to build last year with Time magazine’s goofy breastfeeding cover — a desperate plea for attention by an ancient publication increasingly approaching irrelevance.


Cross-posted from Ed Driscoll’s blog

Blogging since 2002, affiliated with PJM since 2005, where he is currently a columnist, San Jose Editor, and founder of PJM's Lifestyle blog. Over the past 15 years, Ed has contributed articles to National Review Online, the Weekly, Right Wing News, the New Individualist, Blogcritics, Modernism, Videomaker, Servo, Audio/Video Interiors, Electronic House, PC World, Computer Music, Vintage Guitar, and Guitar World.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (3)
All Comments   (3)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Isn't tatooing forbidden by a strict reading of the Bible? I mean the parts that observant Jew observe? A tatoo of the Shield of David is a bigger scandal, I think, than a bit of aureole in an article about the difficult decisions of breast cancer.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Oh My God, a NIPPLE!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Okay, strictly it's an aureole, or rather about 40 percent of one -- the nipple per se is still covered.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All