In case you also don't know by now, The New Yorker needs your money. So do all the other starving newsstand magazines. This is because it's perfectly natural for people to get their reading FREE online.
Pssst, The New Yorker, anyone can Google "lactation" or "milk spurting" and see much, much more interesting pictures than your pretentious hack photographer is offering.
How ironic that The New York tries to get people to buy their mag...by TWEETING
Remember when The New Yorker was known for its articles? For its cartoons? Now it's trying for soft porn?
Is it "perfectly natural" for a woman to take off her dress when breastfeeding? Why is she in her panties? Does she have a slightly older child who is teething, and needs to gum her labia? Will that be in NEXT WEEK's issue?
The New Yorker may be hedging on how much anyone cares about a potato-faced movie mogul still playing the casting couch game. The New Yorker spent a lot of time and publicity on an expose of Harvey Weinstein but...aw, The New York Times did one, too. And once ANY reporting is out there, the Decider and Huffington and ALL the other news aggregates come in, freely quote all the "good parts," and steal away the precious banner ad money.
The New Yorker staff doesn't see the irony of any of this. And considering that the last funny guy there was Lee Lorenz, nobody at The New Yorker can see the humor in anything. Just look at their cartoons. So, when they discover that there was no sizable gain (like from C cup to D cup) for the breastfeeding issue, what WILL they do? Cry over spilt milk?
No comments:
Post a Comment