The National Review caught The New York Times attempting journalism by reporting on wealthy New Yorkers living in their second homes during the COVID-19 outbreak, but the result was a “delicious” reveal of their own hypocrisy. Over the weekend, the NYT published a heart-breaking, gut-wrenching human-interest piece, if you will, on how rich New Yorkers are surviving during COVID in their homes.
Bravery comes from the families who, due to the novel coronavirus, are being forced to live in their luxurious Hampton homes. The tragedy? These homes are supposed to be used as their second home, or weekend home; not a primary residence. Gasp! As National Review writes, “whatever else you think of the New York Times newspaper, there’s a particular deliciousness to the newspaper’s insanely insular lifestyle coverage of the city’s wealthy, entitled, and self-absorbed.”
“I find it pretty fascinating that the New York Times contemplated this as a story idea – how are the Manhattanites who fled the city when the pandemic started coping with life in their second homes? – and five wealthy Hamptons homeowners agreed to interviews and posed for photographs in their sumptuous secondary abodes” wrote National Review’s Jim Geraghty.
Here is an excerpt of the conditions they are suffering under:
While living full-time in places that usually get much less wear and tear, these homeowners share many of the same difficulties as anyone dealing with the coronavirus lockdown – working in communal spaces where their children now are present 24/7, discovering items in their homes that need updating, and then renovating a home while they are living in it.
Have you pulled your wallets out yet to send in donations? It gets worse:
In addition, these homeowners must adjust to living in relatively unfamiliar towns, often far from friends, family, or creature comforts such as a favorite bagel shop or longtime barber.
Please, take the time to wipe away your tears. As writer Geraghty points out in his National Review piece, “you may be sick, you may have buried a loved one, you may be laid off or have lost your business, you may have put off hip surgery, you may be facing eviction…but please, take a moment to think of the publicists and ‘boutique wealth-management company’ executives who haven’t been to their favorite bagel joint in weeks!”
Here is the reality: the Times article says much more about the publication than it does the five wealthy families featured. The piece is another example of the Times’complete disassociation with reality and the American people. They have a false sense of being an authority on morality.
As Geraghty writes, the Times “simultaneously the vanguard of the revolution against wealthy, powerful, white, mostly older, mostly heterosexual couples…and it is also one of the biggest and most influential cultural journals of wealthy, powerful, white, mostly older, mostly heterosexual couples.”
Doubtful they would admit to their own hypocrisy, but as Geraghty writes, it is undeniable that “The New York Times editorial page fumes about inequality and conspicuous consumption…while running on advertising revenue from the top-of-the-line luxury brands.” Mic. Drop.