When I was studying for my GREs the New York Times was supposed to be the newspaper to read. I still agree with that. For creative writing, the New York Times is the place to go. For example, there's this article I read this morning - http://bit.ly/12081w. Very nice article about Michael Jackson and race. It analyzes the progression of Jackson's skin color from black to white and his perception among the black community.
The ending is too good. I quote -
When the video of Mr. Jackson’s “Black and White” came on, her daughter turned to Ms. Deabreu and asked: “Mommy, he said it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white. So why’s he trying to make his skin white?”
Michael Jackson suffered from an auto-immune disease called vitiligo. You can watch him talk about it here. My question to the New York Times is this - why was it irrelevant to news item/analysis to mention that this incredibly famous person actually suffered from a disease that alters his skin's pigmentation. Why is only half the story being told?
But this is my problem with the New York Times in general. All too frequently I feel that only facts that further a thesis that the author came up with apriori to a complete examination are mentioned and others are discarded.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
isn't that the way most stuff is written? I would think so. Anyway it was nice, visiting your blog after a long time and finding something there.
keep writing, it is nice.
By the way, I have been thinking recently of alienness and belonging - as in daughters and daughters-in-law - sometimes the people who belong seem like they don't and so on...
perhaps I will work on this.
Post a Comment