The New York Times Hits A New Low

[owenthurman]

This week a story about the Buffy S8 comics ran in the New York Times with spoilers about Buffy's lesbian adventures. But the biggest news is not the hot girl-girl sexiness. The biggest news is that the New York Times has managed to hit a new low even lower than its recent lowness

Comments

[diachrony]

They *did* say "arguably." Which counts as ass-covering.

However, I find it inexcusable they referred to Spike as merely "another vampire." Parker gets more detail. (!!)

This smacks not only of poor journalism, but also of a hidden agenda. I smell a whiff of secret Bangelism, or perhaps actual anti-Spike sentiment, on the part of the author.

The horror!

[moscow_watcher]

Hee! they managed to insult both Spuffies (with "true love") and Bangels (with "arguably").

[owenthurman]

whiff of secret Bangelism, or perhaps actual anti-Spike sentiment

And from an ostensible source of objective journalism. For shame.

[laisserais]

LOL, so um...not so much a Bangel 'shipper, then? ;)

[owenthurman]

Oh, pretty WML icon. (Spike was so handsome in that episode!)

Still love you anyway, though.

[grave_tidings]

When Spike hears about this, this writer will be no more. Who wants to be the first to write that story? Extra points if you send it to the writer.

[owenthurman]

When Spike hears about this...

I would read that.

[diachrony]

Oh, I just read a (very favorable) review of the issue that included a complaint about the shoddy writing in the NYT article: 'Referring to Spike as just “another vampire” in regards to his relationship with Buffy is like saying the Titanic was “a sunken boat”.'