.jpg)
NYT story on Ivy League SAHMs full of weasel-words, says Slate
Categories: Money & Work, Media
Our readers had a lot to say about a New York Times story which
purported to capture a trend of young women at top colleges
aspiring to become stay-at-home moms. Jack Schafer of
Slate.com has a lot to say, as well - and none of it pretty for the Times. Schafer accuses the article of being loaded
with weasel-words like "many" and "some", instead of quoting actual statistics. Noting that author Louise Story sent
her own personal questionnaire to 138 Ivy League women, Schafer notes that "even s social science drop-out" wouldn't
take the survey seriously without examining the survey itself (which Story doesn't share).
Indeed, Schafer wonders how such a shoddy piece of journalism achieved Page One status in the Times: "Is there a
New York Times conspiracy afoot to drive feminists crazy and persuade young women that their place is in the
home?" He chalks it up to mere opportunism. Someone page
Susan Faludi - I'd
love to hear her take.
Recent Posts
- Reviews: What's New This Week (11/06/2009)
- Jim Carrey's "A Christmas Carol" Creepy in a Good Way (11/06/2009)
- Twitter Follow Friday on ParentDish! (11/06/2009)
- Babies Pick Up Mothers' Accents In The Womb (11/06/2009)
- Recall: Adventure Playsets (11/06/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Wood 12-18-2005 @ 6:38PM
Thanks for linking to the slate article, Jay. I was depressed by that story yesterday, but felt suspicious of the writer and the information she cited.
This seems to be a trend with the New York Times. And like the slate article says -- I think they're just trying to take advantage of a story that would piss people off if it was true.
Reply
Ann Adams 12-18-2005 @ 6:38PM
The NYT just put all of my favorite op-ed writers behind a fire wall. Next day news said they're laying off 500 people.
Do they think this will help their circulation?
Reply
L. 12-18-2005 @ 6:38PM
A friend of mine, a Times reporter, said to me in an email, `....as for that story, I thought it reeked of the "privileged class" and
prolly did not speak to most Americans. but then I'm not sure our paper speaks
to "most Americans."`
Reply