IF only I were gifted at satire, or even its goofy little brother, parody. Those skills would sometimes make commenting on The Times’s journalism so much more fun.
I could take on those Timesian headlines, front-loaded with prepositions, that the paper seems to love so well. (One from a few days ago: “Amid Mayoral Missteps, Irish Eyes Are Rolling in New York City.”)
I could dream up elaborate new reasons to grant sources anonymity. (On that subject, one of concern to many readers, I recently started a new feature on my blog, “AnonyWatch,” to keep track of regrettable anonymous quotes in The Times.)
But most of all, I could write the definitive sendup of the classic New York Times trend piece. Maybe I could write something almost as good as the monocle story.
The monocle story, for those who may have missed it, was a short article in the Thursday Styles section early this month, positing that wearing a single round lens as an eyepiece — the very kind worn by Mr. Peanut, or on the classic Eustace Tilley illustration in The New Yorker, or by Colonel Klink of “Hogan’s Heroes” — was back in fashion.
Under the headline “One Part Mr. Peanut, One Part Hipster Chic,” it began like this:
The one-lensed eyepiece, an item favored by 19th-century military men, robber barons and Mr. Peanut, is finding itself wedged anew into the ocular sockets of would-be gentlemen seeking to emulate the stern countenances of their stuffy forebears.
From the trendy enclaves of Berlin cafes and Manhattan restaurants to gin ads and fashion magazines, the monocle is taking its turn alongside key 21st-century accouterments like sharply tucked plaid shirts and certificates in swine butchering.
Media watchers received the story like a Christmas present, tearing off the wrapping to get at the goods. The fun began on Twitter, after the story went online but well before its print publication. Dustin Gillard tweeted: “NYTimes does a trend piece on monocles. It is about as good/bad as it sounds.” (No one ever said the Internet was good at nuance; the wags ignored that the short piece was tucked inside the Styles section in its “Noted” column, treating it instead as if it were front-page screaming-headline news.)
By the next morning, The Washington Post had taken it up, even adding an official statement from Mr. Peanut. And soon, other media sites had chimed in, including New York magazine’s entertainingretrospective of The Times declaring the monocle back in fashion — at least five times over the past 112 years.
The reporter Lois Beckett, from the investigative reporting outfit ProPublica, even brought Big Data to bear on the trend, posting a tongue-in-cheek survey about monocle sightings.
The article’s reception didn’t shock Denny Lee, an editor in the Styles section who worked on the piece from the beginning. From the minute he saw the raw copy, it reminded him of a certain humor publication.
“When I first read it, I thought, ‘This is so Onion,’ ” Mr. Lee told me last week. The language was intentionally “slightly overwrought,” making it obvious that the writer, Allen Salkin, “was in on the joke.”
But why, I’ve been wondering, does The Times do so many of these pieces? (Recent examples: articles about back-to-basics funerals, theestablishment beard, the popularity of Citi-biking home from bar crawls and the move away from waxing pubic hair.) How do they come up with them? And how do editors react when they are mocked?
Advertisement
I asked the Styles editor, Stuart Emmrich, to fill me in. (Not all trend pieces run in Styles, of course; they may appear in Dining, Real Estate and even on the news pages.)
“I try to stay away from ‘trend’ stories in favor of what I call ‘snapshots’ — pieces, sometimes inside quick hits (usually in the Noted column) and sometimes cover stories, that give a window into the lives of some of our readers,” he told me. It’s what he likes to call “the journalism of recognition,” he says — “sometimes to the eye rolls of my staff.”
Some of the ideas come from freelance pitches, as the monocle column did.
“But most often they come from a Monday morning meeting with my staff where I open with a very specific question: What did you do, see, listen to, read or talk to friends about this weekend? Is there a story there?”
As for his reaction when articles are criticized, Mr. Emmrich rolls with the punches: “If it comes directly from a reader, I try to respond thoughtfully and respectfully. If it comes from a blog or some other site, I read it, usually chuckle (especially if it is a well-written attack) and then move on.”
With its large staff, great variety of sections and considerable resources, The Times has room on its diverse menu not only for coverage of world crises and global economic trends, but for lighter fare: book and restaurant reviews, theater coverage and, apparently, a full consideration of ironic eyewear.
While The Times’s declarations of trends can sometimes seem self-serious, overblown and out-of-touch, they also can — at their best — provoke moments of recognition and lively conversation. And because they occasionally provide a full day’s worth of hilarity, let’s pray that they never go away.
By the way, I’m just back from biking to Bushwick. And I’m wondering: Has anyone noticed how many women are using lorgnette-handled opera glasses lately?
Follow the public editor on Twitter at twitter.com/sulliview and read her blog at publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com.