Current Events > The New York Times has its finger on the goddamn pulse

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://bsky.app/profile/nytimes.com/post/3ks5jylcxg22s

Tell me more.

"No one cares" lol

It's nice to see they're reporting the important issues.

Sheesh

This seems like a fake job, writing about the clothes a person wore to a trial wtf

Were they expecting her to show up in a porn costume?

They expect her to dress for their entertainment in a fucking courtroom????

The article was written by a fashion critic--not a journalist--and it shows.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The article was written by a fashion critic--not a journalist--and it shows.

why is a fashion critic critiquing court room attire in the first place

There is a certain irony to the fact that the most consequential role Stormy Daniels, the adult entertainer at the heart of the Trump criminal trial, may ever play is taking place off screen. There are no cameras allowed in the courtroom where she is a crucial witness, as she tells her story of her sexual encounter with Mr. Trump and the hush-money payment and the nondisclosure agreement his fixer arranged to keep her silent.
That means that on Tuesday, the first day of her testimony, the watching world could catch only glimpses of her as she left State Supreme Court in Lower Manhattan. She was in all black, in a scoop-neck jumpsuit with cropped black trousers, chunky high-heel boots and a long shawl-like cardigan with a hood enveloping her now famous body. Her blond hair was caught up in the back with bits escaping to shield her face, and she was wearing black-frame glasses and little makeup.

On Thursday, when her cross-examination resumed, she was obscured by the same dark cloak, though underneath was a plain green dress. She wore her hair down and a necklace her daughter had made.

Ms. Daniels has often been discussed as the most colorful part of the case the bringer of salacious detail, the source of the juicy tell-all. The defense has portrayed her as a money-chasing, fame-obsessed self-promoter. But in her court appearances she didnt look particularly colorful. She looked the opposite.

While her messy hair and subdued makeup may have suggested a lack of calculation, however, the jumpsuit she was wearing on Day 1 was the same jumpsuit she wore in her cameo in the 2021 film Bad President, a satire in which Donald Trump sells his soul to the devil to win the 2016 election. Given that the actual Mr. Trump was sitting across the courtroom from her, thats quite a subtext.

In her presentation in court, as in so much else, Ms. Daniels has refused to conform to expectations.

Why does it matter?

Ms. Daniels is a singular figure in a singular case. In any trial, how a witness looks plays a meaningful role in how his or her testimony is received, in court and in the court of public opinion. In this case, it informs how Ms. Daniels and what she says will be judged: by the jury, by the public and, later, by history.
This is especially true for a witness like Ms. Daniels, whose mere job description porn actress or stripper or adult entertainment writer-director-actor or all the above comes with a host of deep-seated cultural and social associations and age-old moral levies that shape expectations long before any words are uttered.

As her story emerged in the news, followed by her book Full Disclosure and a documentary (not to mention assorted comic books), and as she was adopted as a figurehead by the anti-Trump resistance and appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live and Saturday Night Live, she has embraced her own caricature as a means to subvert preconceptions, often with humor. There are more than 100 different items of Stormy merch on Redbubble alone.
Even before Ms. Daniels was called to the stand, an image of her that purported to be taken on her way to the courthouse had taken off online, showing her in a blue dress speckled with a toadstool print a reference to a somewhat pointed passage in her book about Mr. Trumps physiology. The photo had been doctored to include the mushrooms, but it reflects how much Ms. Danielss body and what she puts on it has become a symbol of her story and an opportunity for derision and mockery, or for applause.

This is exacerbated in the spotlight of the witness chair, where conventional wisdom has it that, as Richard T. Ford, a professor at Stanford Law School and the author of Dress Codes: How the Laws of Fashion Made History, said: Women, especially when involved in any accusation or scandal involving sex, should dress in a conservative and demure style. Juries tend to trust women who seem modest and chaste. The basic suit is the default solution.
When it comes to a porn star and stripper, however, the costumes of modest and chaste may seem less credible than contrived may, in fact, undermine her testimony rather than enhance it. The last time Ms. Daniels was in court, when she sued Mr. Trump for defamation in 2018, she chose a more conventional lavender suit with a simple black blouse and wore her hair loose and curled and lost.

According to Debra S. Katz, a founding partner at the law firm Katz Banks Kumin and a civil rights lawyer who represented several of Harvey Weinsteins accusers, dressing generically is important, but ultimately, conveying authenticity matters most. Ms. Katz said that in her experience with the Manhattan district attorneys office during the trial of Mr. Weinstein, the prosecutors did not suggest what witnesses should wear, lest the result seem too manufactured, but left the choice to them and their counsel. As a witness, you want a jury to believe you are telling the truth, so everything about you should suggest honesty, telegraphing the sense that they are seeing the true version of you.

This may be especially relevant when it comes to Ms. Daniels, who has never fit easily into any specific slot in the spectrum of female stereotypes, which run the gamut from the angel and the nun to the floozy and the fallen woman. Since she came to general attention in 2018 after allegations of her encounter with Mr. Trump surfaced, she has refused to apologize for her chosen profession or renounce it. Rather, she has presented herself as a self-made woman who built a business on what she had at hand. That is not an accident.

Ms. Daniels is not only a performer but also a director and a writer. She understands the power of narrative structure and the telling detail especially the telling detail of clothes, as her testimony about Mr. Trumps satin pajamas reflects.

When she appeared on 60 Minutes, she did so in a buttoned-up pink blouse and skirt, looking sort of like the executive next door. When she was on The View, she wore a long-sleeve blouse that tied with a bow at the neck and was covered in a skull print. She is willing to challenge the narrative. Now she is doing it yet again, using her appearance to stymie attempts to paint her as any identifiable type.

The question is whether the jury will be convinced.

New York Times pitchbot is obsolete

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/5/5c851d1e.jpg

What I Cover
I focus on fashion as an expression of political, social and cultural identity at a specific moment in time, especially how it is used by those in the public eye to communicate values and influence opinion. I look at how designers translate that into products for all of us on the runway, as well as the evolution of fashion into a part of pop culture. And I examine the way all of that influences the larger business of fashion, one of the worlds biggest industries.

My Background
I joined The Times in 2014 after 11 years at the Financial Times, five of them in London. I was the FTs first fashion editor, and the FT was my first all-fashion job. Before that I focused on culture coverage at magazines such as InStyle, The Economist and The New Yorker. I have won the Fashion Group Internationals Media Award, the Front Page award for fashion writing, and the Fashion/Beauty Monitor award for fashion journalist of the year. I graduated from Princeton University with a B.A. in history, and live in Brooklyn with my family.

Journalistic Ethics
The Times has an extensive ethics policy, which all Times journalists follow. I dont accept press trips (flights and hotels) to cover faraway shows or presentations, nor gifts such as clothes or handbags, and I cannot directly hold stock in any companies I cover. Whenever I contact people for information, I identify myself as a reporter for The Times. If I grant anonymity to a source, I always abide by that agreement. I do not actively participate in political causes. I vote.

---

I'm curious about that ethics policy. Let's check that out next.

Oh geeze it's a fucking book of ethics.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Oh geeze it's a fucking book of ethics.

it really is gigantic

I skimmed a few random bits of it and they all seem like generally good ideas/guidelines. So I don't really have complaints about it being long. but it definitely surprised me

We're giving them what they want.

Antifar posted...

https://bsky.app/profile/nytimes.com/post/3ks5jylcxg22s

Do we even need Pitchbot anymore?

they getting raked in the comments at least

This lines up with how bad the NYTs' political coverage is. They'd rather talk about a dress than the developments in the case

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

why is a fashion critic critiquing court room attire in the first place

Because it gets people like TC to post it on here, and then people talk about it.

thronedfire2 posted...

Were they expecting her to show up in a porn costume?

What's a porn costume?

how do these publications even stay afloat with that kind of unprofessionalism

Umbongo posted...

What's a porn costume?

nurse/teacher/nun/etc

TheMikh posted...

how do these publications even stay afloat with that kind of unprofessionalism

These publications were almost dead before Trump.