I usually enjoy The New York Times' arts and entertainment coverage but yesterday's article on rich people as the new porn (both literally and figuratively) pissed me off to no end.


Now don't get me wrong, I like to snark and the NY Times is often a greak place to go to get one's snark on but this time I think they crossed the line. It's one thing to take jabs at people for what they do but when you're being snide at the expense of an 18-year-old girl's self-esteem, when you poke fun at a young girl's appearance, a young girl's who's only crime is being the rich and now semi-famous daughter of some filthy rich guy--well that's just plain mean.

In keeping with the general hypocrisy about the upper class, these shows have already whipped up some moral outrage. In "Rich Girls," Ally Hilfiger, daughter of Tommy, and a less attractive sidekick are shown doing "damage" in Prada and expressing their patronizing concern for plebian New Yorkers, notably Prada salespeople and "garbage men." In "The Simple Life," which has its premiere on Dec. 2, Ms. Hilton and her own less attractive sidekick are airlifted from 90210 to the Ozarks for a monthlong live-in with a farm family." (italics mine)

The references to the "less attractive" friends/sidekicks had absolutely no relevance in this piece and only served as a snide underscoring of why many people rightfully think that entertainment journalism is a pointless endeavor. Just think about, how would you like to be reduced to and referred to as the "less attractive" one? Right, you wouldn't.