This Week's Recommended Reading #22
From Ash:
This week's recommended reading is well, all New York Times. First time I've done that, just picked one publication, but these are the pieces that stood out for me enough to remember them more than a few minutes after reading them.
Now, you may have already seen the NYT's piece, 51% of Women Are Living Without a Spouse, which wasn't horrible – but the ludicrously sunny line about how divorced women don't remarry because they enjoy their newfound freedom (as supposed to can't or won't date because they have custody of the kids) drove me crazy. And I thought that the CJR Daily comments on the NYT's shortsightedness (i.e. completely ignored) in terms of the disparity of marriage rates of class and race were dead-on.
Apparently, the NYT must have agreed with CJR: because Sunday, the NYT ran a much better piece that tackled just that - the class and education disparities of getting married, with a dash of race-thrown in there, too. Too bad it was just a dash, but at least it was acknowledged. And I don't know why they do that – but it's a pattern I've seen more than once: they run a "trend" story that's only got half the story, and is usually laden with a cultural bias, then later the same week, they run a piece that has the information they should have included the first time.
Earlier in the week, there was an intriguing article about the effort to stop pregnant women from Mainland China emigrating to Hong Kong just in time to give birth in Hong Kong (which would give their children Hong Kong residency status).
Then I liked the Sunday piece about a kids' soccer league in Georgia - but most of the kids are refugees from war-torn countries around the globe.
Speaking of the Times' coverage on clash of cultures, it isn't the near-tear-jerker the soccer piece, is but I gotta' plug my friend Michael Colton's piece, Yo Quiero Marry Carla. The NYT url is "funny_humor," and the IT guy was right: it's a hoot. Yea, Mike.
This week's recommended reading is well, all New York Times. First time I've done that, just picked one publication, but these are the pieces that stood out for me enough to remember them more than a few minutes after reading them.
Now, you may have already seen the NYT's piece, 51% of Women Are Living Without a Spouse, which wasn't horrible – but the ludicrously sunny line about how divorced women don't remarry because they enjoy their newfound freedom (as supposed to can't or won't date because they have custody of the kids) drove me crazy. And I thought that the CJR Daily comments on the NYT's shortsightedness (i.e. completely ignored) in terms of the disparity of marriage rates of class and race were dead-on.
Apparently, the NYT must have agreed with CJR: because Sunday, the NYT ran a much better piece that tackled just that - the class and education disparities of getting married, with a dash of race-thrown in there, too. Too bad it was just a dash, but at least it was acknowledged. And I don't know why they do that – but it's a pattern I've seen more than once: they run a "trend" story that's only got half the story, and is usually laden with a cultural bias, then later the same week, they run a piece that has the information they should have included the first time.
Earlier in the week, there was an intriguing article about the effort to stop pregnant women from Mainland China emigrating to Hong Kong just in time to give birth in Hong Kong (which would give their children Hong Kong residency status).
Then I liked the Sunday piece about a kids' soccer league in Georgia - but most of the kids are refugees from war-torn countries around the globe.
Speaking of the Times' coverage on clash of cultures, it isn't the near-tear-jerker the soccer piece, is but I gotta' plug my friend Michael Colton's piece, Yo Quiero Marry Carla. The NYT url is "funny_humor," and the IT guy was right: it's a hoot. Yea, Mike.
posted by Ashley Merryman at 6:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home