Eliot Spitzer, media, ashley alexandra dupre, journalismism, newspapers, pictures, questions...

NYT Readers Mystified By Hooker Pictures

Sedate national readers are so curious about Eliot Spitzer's sexy sex affair of illegal sex that the Times had to post a whole list of FAQ's about the story. Complete with answers! One of the most asinine questions is, "Why did The Times track down and identify 'Kristen,' the prostitute in the case?" Our answer would be, "Seriously?" But the Times, being a respectable news outlet, tells its curious old readers that the real answer is: because she's in the news. Well, why did they have to print a picture of her sexy sexiness, then?

Times editors said the photographs were published because they have inherent news value — readers always want to know what the people they are reading about look like. "We cropped the photograph of her in a bikini so as to meet our standards for taste, and ran it in conjunction with another photograph, where she is clothed," Ms. Rudoren said.
She added: "Part of the reason we ran both pictures was to provide as complete a portrait as possible; only showing the bikini picture might have given an overly sexy impression, for example; only using the other picture might have given a distorted sense of youthful innocence. We linked to the MySpace page so readers could get more information and listen to her song; we frequently provide links to MySpace or other sites."

Leave the good pictures to us! (And the Post!) [weak pic above via the NYT]

5:29 PM on Fri Mar 14 2008
By Hamilton Nolan
16,328 views
17 comments

Comments

meechybee at 05:34 PM on 03/14/08
Reply by Email
*

I love the question about why the NYT didn't include a (D) after Spitzer's name. Sounds like some right-wing-nut sniffing for a liberal media conspiracy to me.
dweeb at 05:36 PM on 03/14/08
Reply by Email
*

Doesn't look like the fellow who founded Hartford?
MenaceIISobriety at 05:37 PM on 03/14/08
Reply by Email
*

divine brown's appeal < this trick's appeal
collegecallgirl at 05:37 PM on 03/14/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 921

Little too much clavicle for my taste standards.
MenaceIISobriety at 05:40 PM on 03/14/08
Reply by Email
*

heh 'youthful innocence.'
i'd like to see what she was up to at 17.
no, really...are there any pics/videos?
BeaArthur at 05:41 PM on 03/14/08
Reply by Email
*

Weird, is that Julia Allison? My my she IS a busy girl.
belltolls at 05:44 PM on 03/14/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 209

They were not completely honest about the picture. I fully expect it to show up in the next travel feature on the Cote d'Azure.
J. Henry Waugh at 05:44 PM on 03/14/08
Reply by Email
*

@meechybee: Oh, that's what they meant when referring to Spitzer's D.
Tammany_Fall at 05:50 PM on 03/14/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 183

I loved how they kept telling everyone that she came from a "broken home." Very Kramer vs. Kramer.
freeoverunders at 05:57 PM on 03/14/08
Reply by Email
*

It's sad to realize that the paper of record thinks we are idiots.
donmiguel at 05:57 PM on 03/14/08
Reply by Email
*

Here's wondering how she will cash in... Is it going to be a book or some kind of television "expose"?
donmiguel at 05:59 PM on 03/14/08
Reply by Email
*

I LURVED that film. Dustin was pretty darned good. And Silda kind of reminds me of Meryl...
Joe Buck at 07:41 PM on 03/14/08
Reply by Email
*

"We Want More." Whore is the new Madonna.
ellagood at 09:09 PM on 03/14/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 266

ok. then where are the pictures of the intern that larry craig carried on an affair with?
TheBigDoggy at 01:40 AM on 03/15/08
Reply by Email
*

I am so sick of you jerkoffs ripping the Times. What a bunch of sad little underachievers you are! You'd all give your Emperors Club cards to even be freelancers at the NYT.
plasticene at 10:42 AM on 03/15/08
Reply by Email
*

blah blah blah blah BIKINI!
blah blah blah SEXY PICTURES BLAH

read every third word or so in the Times and you get the news.
StevieQ at 12:23 PM on 03/15/08
Reply by Email
*

@TheBigDoggy: At least Gawker is honest about exploiting the whole thing for page views and sensationalism. Reading that pathetic excuse from the Times made me ill. There was no reason to show photos of the hooker, or link to her MySpace page, other than sensationalism.