The New York Times Profiled the Brant Brothers Because the New York Times Hates You
June 22, 2012 9:21 AM Subscribe
"Harry, 15, and his 18-year-old brother are the well-spoken product of cross-pollination of the Übermenschen." - I want to take this sentence, drag it out into the backyard, and beat it to death with a shovel. Gawker gets the knives out for the New York Times style section.
This post was deleted for the following reason: I feel like maybe "Gawker gawks at, fisks dumb article" isn't really enough for a post at this point if it's not something really weirdly exceptional for some reason. -- cortex
That bit with the shovel was my favorite sentence in the whole awesome article.
posted by scratch at 9:26 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by scratch at 9:26 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
Gawker and the Times take their codependent relationship for another spin around the dance floor...
posted by fatbird at 9:27 AM on June 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by fatbird at 9:27 AM on June 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
Gawker and the Times take their codependent relationship for another spin around the dance floor...
Yeah this really does read like Prelude to a Hate-Fuck.
posted by griphus at 9:28 AM on June 22, 2012 [9 favorites]
Yeah this really does read like Prelude to a Hate-Fuck.
posted by griphus at 9:28 AM on June 22, 2012 [9 favorites]
"The New York Times Profiled the Brant Brothers Because the New York Times Hates You" as funny as this thing is, and it really did make me laugh, I'll never understand why people say "The New York Times" like it's a single person or one person gets to decide every single thing that gets published. It's a HUGE organization, run by god only knows how many editors and managers and all that crap. They have a huge audience, and they write crap like this for idiots who would want to read it.
posted by Blake at 9:28 AM on June 22, 2012
posted by Blake at 9:28 AM on June 22, 2012
For my own entertainment, I hope that these two boys are involved in a salacious murder trial of the century. I don't even feel too bad about wishing that since they'll be acquitted despite the shocking evidence brought against them. The New York Post coverage will be phenomenal.
posted by Thin Lizzy at 9:28 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Thin Lizzy at 9:28 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
That bit with the shovel
I just read a comment somewhere else in the Gawkerverse - "Kill it. Bury it at midnight. Bury the shovel."
posted by obscurator at 9:29 AM on June 22, 2012
I just read a comment somewhere else in the Gawkerverse - "Kill it. Bury it at midnight. Bury the shovel."
posted by obscurator at 9:29 AM on June 22, 2012
The NYT article was pretty awful, honestly, and I read it most of the way expecting to find it was a New Yorker "Shouts & Murmurs." While I do not agree that Willow and Jaden Smith deserve to be hit by a milk Truck, I did like the Gawker article otherwise.
posted by Peach at 9:30 AM on June 22, 2012
posted by Peach at 9:30 AM on June 22, 2012
"They have a huge audience, and they write crap like this for idiots who would want to read it."
That is, by definition, lowering standards.
posted by esoterica at 9:32 AM on June 22, 2012
That is, by definition, lowering standards.
posted by esoterica at 9:32 AM on June 22, 2012
They have a huge audience, and they write crap like this for idiots who would want to read it.
oh is that all this is? well nevermind then! that's okay!
posted by Avenger50 at 9:33 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
oh is that all this is? well nevermind then! that's okay!
posted by Avenger50 at 9:33 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend.
posted by elizardbits at 9:34 AM on June 22, 2012
posted by elizardbits at 9:34 AM on June 22, 2012
In this day and age I really do not think there is enough hate out there directed towards over-privileged rich idiots. More, I say! More! (Now where's my tumbrel)
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:35 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:35 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
I have no idea who these people are - the article makes me think they are the New York equivalent of Samantha Brick - but that was some good snarkin'.
The local evening paper in London is the Evening Standard. You'd think it would be all about the diverse interests of the capital, such as how expensive property is, things to do at the weekend when your mum comes to visit, interesting shops. Their colour supplement is almost entirely full of stories about the children of rich and/or famous people (although at the moment it's Olympics-heavy) and the paper itself is not much better - one of their columnists suggested the knife crime that was particularly prevalent amongst black youths in deprived boroughs and is still resulting in regular deaths as 'a teenage phase that will burn itself out, like Mods and rockers' - right wing invective mixed in with articles about private gyms and beauty treatments, as if your man in Hackney or Hounslow really gives a fuck where Caggie Dunlop slept last night.
posted by mippy at 9:35 AM on June 22, 2012
The local evening paper in London is the Evening Standard. You'd think it would be all about the diverse interests of the capital, such as how expensive property is, things to do at the weekend when your mum comes to visit, interesting shops. Their colour supplement is almost entirely full of stories about the children of rich and/or famous people (although at the moment it's Olympics-heavy) and the paper itself is not much better - one of their columnists suggested the knife crime that was particularly prevalent amongst black youths in deprived boroughs and is still resulting in regular deaths as 'a teenage phase that will burn itself out, like Mods and rockers' - right wing invective mixed in with articles about private gyms and beauty treatments, as if your man in Hackney or Hounslow really gives a fuck where Caggie Dunlop slept last night.
posted by mippy at 9:35 AM on June 22, 2012
The NYT article was pretty awful, honestly
Isn't that the point of the Style Section? Either people read it and they're like, "Oh, how cute/interesting/charming/fascinating/whatever," or they read it and they're like "Oh my god that is the worst, most cloying, obnoxious, wrong bit of bullshit I've ever seen in print," and then they share it with their friends and either way the Style Section gets its profile raised, web traffic, etc.
I was pretty sure that was the Style Section's strategy.
posted by entropone at 9:35 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
Isn't that the point of the Style Section? Either people read it and they're like, "Oh, how cute/interesting/charming/fascinating/whatever," or they read it and they're like "Oh my god that is the worst, most cloying, obnoxious, wrong bit of bullshit I've ever seen in print," and then they share it with their friends and either way the Style Section gets its profile raised, web traffic, etc.
I was pretty sure that was the Style Section's strategy.
posted by entropone at 9:35 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
For some reason all I can see in their future is a short stint of brother-on-brother gay incest porn before death from substance abuse.
posted by tommasz at 9:36 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by tommasz at 9:36 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
Laughed out loud at this for some reason.
"Everybody loves celebrity children," said Stephanie Trong, the editorial director of The Cut.
No, they don't.
I guess, it's just such a dumb way to begin any statement. "Everybody loves ..."
NO THEY DON'T.
Everybody doesn't love anything. I know people who hate the Beatles. I know people who hate Jesus. I know people who hate orgasms. I'm sure I know people who hate that video of a bunny rabbit wrestling with a kitty-cat.
But one thing is clear. Nobody loves me.
posted by philip-random at 9:36 AM on June 22, 2012
"Everybody loves celebrity children," said Stephanie Trong, the editorial director of The Cut.
No, they don't.
I guess, it's just such a dumb way to begin any statement. "Everybody loves ..."
NO THEY DON'T.
Everybody doesn't love anything. I know people who hate the Beatles. I know people who hate Jesus. I know people who hate orgasms. I'm sure I know people who hate that video of a bunny rabbit wrestling with a kitty-cat.
But one thing is clear. Nobody loves me.
posted by philip-random at 9:36 AM on June 22, 2012
Asshole website attacks asshole paper for writing an asshole article about assholes.
posted by jonmc at 9:37 AM on June 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by jonmc at 9:37 AM on June 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
"Asshole website attacks asshole paper for writing an asshole article about assholes."
This is bad??
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:38 AM on June 22, 2012
This is bad??
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:38 AM on June 22, 2012
It's a HUGE organization, run by god only knows how many editors and managers and all that crap.
You're on target about the hugeness, but like any huge organization--Apple, Microsoft, McDonalds, anybody--it devotes great energy to unifying its divergence of departments and views under a single, rigorously applied standard.
This standard, in publishing, is known as an "editorial policy." And it has lapsed.
posted by Gordion Knott at 9:38 AM on June 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
You're on target about the hugeness, but like any huge organization--Apple, Microsoft, McDonalds, anybody--it devotes great energy to unifying its divergence of departments and views under a single, rigorously applied standard.
This standard, in publishing, is known as an "editorial policy." And it has lapsed.
posted by Gordion Knott at 9:38 AM on June 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
The Gawker article lambasts the New York Times Style Section for its obsession with celebrity children with a disturbingly obsessive article about celebrity children.
It's very clear that the people who read Gawker and the Style Section are very interested in the children of celebrities, whether to praise their wit or suggest that they should die in a grease fire.
posted by justkevin at 9:39 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
It's very clear that the people who read Gawker and the Style Section are very interested in the children of celebrities, whether to praise their wit or suggest that they should die in a grease fire.
posted by justkevin at 9:39 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
Gawker, Jan 2011: Published photos of Peter Brant Jr. kissing his mom (862k pageviews, 1121 comments)
Gawker, Jan 2011: Published Peter Brant Jr.'s Facebook note about kissing his mom (148k pageviews, 527 comments)
Gawker, Jan 2012: "It's official, I am completely obsessed with openly gay socialite Peter Brant II and his (potentially gay) younger brother Harry. Screw Glee's Kurt Hummell, every gay teen on earth pretty much wishes they were either of these kids. They're just spectacularly amazing." (108k pageviews, 458 comments)
Gawker, June 2012: "Wait nevermind" (78k pageviews, 280 comments)
posted by acidic at 9:39 AM on June 22, 2012 [9 favorites]
Gawker, Jan 2011: Published Peter Brant Jr.'s Facebook note about kissing his mom (148k pageviews, 527 comments)
Gawker, Jan 2012: "It's official, I am completely obsessed with openly gay socialite Peter Brant II and his (potentially gay) younger brother Harry. Screw Glee's Kurt Hummell, every gay teen on earth pretty much wishes they were either of these kids. They're just spectacularly amazing." (108k pageviews, 458 comments)
Gawker, June 2012: "Wait nevermind" (78k pageviews, 280 comments)
posted by acidic at 9:39 AM on June 22, 2012 [9 favorites]
Gawker totally doesn't get the purpose of the Times Style section.
It's going to be indispensable when we need to figure out which heads to cut off first.
posted by R. Schlock at 9:40 AM on June 22, 2012 [6 favorites]
It's going to be indispensable when we need to figure out which heads to cut off first.
posted by R. Schlock at 9:40 AM on June 22, 2012 [6 favorites]
This is the opposite of the feeling I have when I see two friends in a fight.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:40 AM on June 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:40 AM on June 22, 2012 [2 favorites]
Someone in the comments mentioned Gawker previously profiled these twits themselves.
posted by HumanComplex at 9:40 AM on June 22, 2012
posted by HumanComplex at 9:40 AM on June 22, 2012
just a second too late.
posted by HumanComplex at 9:41 AM on June 22, 2012
posted by HumanComplex at 9:41 AM on June 22, 2012
Gawker, June 2012: "Wait nevermind" (78k pageviews, 280 comments)
It's a HUGE organization, run by god only knows how many editors and managers and all that crap.
posted by cell divide at 9:41 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
It's a HUGE organization, run by god only knows how many editors and managers and all that crap.
posted by cell divide at 9:41 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
The sole good thing about that article is the reminder that Troop Beverly Hills exists to be drunkenly rewatched this weekend.
posted by elizardbits at 9:44 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by elizardbits at 9:44 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
I would never have heard of these children if it wasn't for this link.
I'm not saying that that's a good thing or a bad thing.
posted by Petrot at 9:44 AM on June 22, 2012
I'm not saying that that's a good thing or a bad thing.
posted by Petrot at 9:44 AM on June 22, 2012
I thought perhaps Gawker had cherry picked items from the article. Sadly, they hadn't. They didn't even use the final line:
Ever blasé, Peter tilted his head, looked at him blankly, then turned away, showing off his strong profile.
posted by Atreides at 9:45 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
Ever blasé, Peter tilted his head, looked at him blankly, then turned away, showing off his strong profile.
posted by Atreides at 9:45 AM on June 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
It's the Style section, what were they expecting? And people do eat this shit up, and have been for hundreds of years. It is a thing. Case in point: Casanova's Histoire de ma vie. Many folks just love love love reading about people who are richer and hotter than them. It's probably aspirational or something.
Me, I'm not really interested. That's why I skip the Style section. Doesn't take too much effort, neither. But let's be honest, this isn't really about some gross article in a gross section of NYT: it's about Gawker, and how you should read their articles and stuff.
posted by Doleful Creature at 9:47 AM on June 22, 2012
Me, I'm not really interested. That's why I skip the Style section. Doesn't take too much effort, neither. But let's be honest, this isn't really about some gross article in a gross section of NYT: it's about Gawker, and how you should read their articles and stuff.
posted by Doleful Creature at 9:47 AM on June 22, 2012
« Older What's squishy, pureed, and comes in a pouch? | This is what the Internet is for. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by obscurator at 9:24 AM on June 22, 2012