1. DrBubbles says

    I see your point, but on the other hand, by putting it in F&S it might reach people who need to see it and wouldn’t if it were in the Science section. The number of people who see nothing wrong with skeletal models in fashion illustration, and who think non-skeletal bodies are basically obese, is shocking. I mean, this comes out in fashion blog *comments*.

    On the other hand, maybe that kind of person would be too busy with Cosmo and Glamour ever to touch even F&S section of the NYT.

  2. Rad Scientist says

    I was so irate when I first noticed that this article was in the fashion and style section. But interestingly, I can see that Dr. Bubbles has a point. At least the online version should be under health though, and could just be crosslisted with fashion?

  3. says

    DrBubbles, you would have a point if the Times didn’t put damn near every news story about women in “Fashion and Style”. Health issues, domestic violence, reproductive rights, career v. mommy issues? It all goes in “fashion and style” in most newspapers because, doncha know, if it’s about women it’s not really *news*.

  4. ginger says

    Well, you guys are almost right. Ultimately this article belongs in Arts because it’s (a puff piece) about a family-perspective documentary made by the mother of someone who died of bulimia.

    If we had a real story about bulimia or any other issue relating to women’s health, it would belong in Health. But for that to happen, a newspaper editor would have to assign a real story about women’s health, and that ain’t gonna happen. For the same “reason”, an article about a woman making a movie about her daughter’s death ended up in Fashion and Style instead of Arts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *