I have no idea what the New York Times means when it calls itself “urban modern”, but I know what it says to me. The Times is declaring that it is going to speak only to its own echo chamber of upper-class progressives who have cloistered themselves in the high-rent districts of northeast and west-coast cities.
If you’re wondering if you are “urban modern” enough for the Times, Stacy has a few helpful self-tests.
- You graduated from a college where the yearly tuition is larger than the annual income of the doorman at your apartment building.
- You actually considered moving to Connecticut to be a campaign volunteer for Ned Lamont.
- You make a six-figure salary, live in a rent-controlled apartment, and vote for candidates who promise to fix the “affordable housing” problem.
I’ll add a few more of my own.
- Your definition of “crisis” is when the sushi bar down the street runs out of California Rolls.
- You think “Sex in the City” is a dating “how-to” manual.
- Even though you think people shouldn’t eat cows, you’ve never actually seen one face to face.
- You believe a college degree is a better indicator of whether someone can handle a job than whether they’ve actually done the job before.
- You think paying 5 dollars for a hamburger is a good thing.
- You don’t know anyone whose job requires manual labor.
Feel free to add your own in the comments!
UPDATE: Head back over to Stacy’s post where he breaks out the Lewis Grizzard and says:
How do you know that Jimmie Bise isn’t “urban modern”? He’d be known as Jamie, and would have a business card describing himself as an “Online Communications Strategist.”
If I ever hand you a business card with the word “strategist” on it, you may feel free to punch me in the stomach really hard.
Also, to establish my cred as definitly not “urban modern”, my given name really is Jimmie and not James.
Tags: New York Times
