🌊 The NYT’s Ivy League Problem

Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!

By Max Towey

On Thursday, we published an article about our intent to criss-cross the US over the next year to document our country in its 250th year. Today’s article is for those wondering why Roca has to do that, as opposed to, say, The New York Times. 

This April, The New York Times published a story about a new fashion piece titled, “A Hot Accessory, at the Intersection of Faith and Culture.”

Our minds began to wander: What might this mysterious new faith accessory be? A Mayan moon necklace? An Aztec sun ring? Some astrological talisman? 

None of the above. The trending accessory in question was the “cross necklace.” 

Come again? We’re going to need some more context, esteemed NYT author, on what this exotic “cross necklace” might be. 

With the help of a theologian, she obliges: “‘The cross, a symbol most associated with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, first emerged during the Roman Empire when it was an instrument of mass torture,’ said Robert Covolo, a theologian and associate pastor at Christ Church Sierra Madre near Los Angeles.”

Thank you for the clarification, NYT editorial staff. Next question: Who is Jesus?

This piece is merely the latest in a long train of egregious examples of the Gray Lady’s out-of-touchness. Are they really so far removed from normal Americans that they consider the cross necklace to be a hot new accessory? The piece doesn’t cite any data – it is merely the observation of the author that White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and several mid-tier TikTok influencers wear them. 

In most of the country, of course, a cross necklace is no more a “hot new fashion accessory” than a white sock. It’s the defining symbol of a religion that claims nearly 2.5B people – and two-thirds of Americans – as followers.

But The New York Times doesn’t know this because it no longer understands the country it’s supposed to cover. It is so lost in its own bubble that it feels more of a need to define the cross than it does CENTCOM. 

Perhaps some of you are giving The New York Times the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this was an embarrassing slip-up or an innocent nod at the uptick in the cross’s internet exposure. 

But no, this piece is the rule, not the exception. And the reason is simple: The New York Times – which loves to preach the importance of representation and inclusivity – is one of the most exclusive and unrepresentative institutions on Earth, as today’s deep-dive will show.

Editor’s Note

Shortly after Max T drafted this, the NYT’s editor published an article that laid out the alleged value of the Times. He wrote:

Will the Times ask those “tough questions” of itself? Will it consider that it’s out of touch with the public it claims to represent? Let us know by replying to this email, and please enjoy your Saturdays. 

And if you want some long weekend reading, check out the below:

• Inside JD Vance’s Hometown

• The Great Multiculturalism Debate

• The Great Polish Housing Miracle

• The Conspiracies That Weren’t

• The Sport That Took Over American Politics

See you tomorrow,

Max and Max