The New York Times Is Insane

jennifer-aniston-golden-globes-dress.jpgHas the New York Times really stooped as low as to discuss the body mass index of female celebrities? Furthermore, has the stalwart paper even gotten it's facts wrong? It appears so! Details, via The Huffington Post

[The NYT fashion blog 'The Moment' has published a curious commentary about 'weight gain' among actresses at Sunday's Golden Globes ceremony. And no, they're not talking about actual full-figured women up for awards this year, like Gabourey Sidibe or Mo'Nique. In the piece, called 'Now Scrutinizing: A Rounder Golden Globes,' Andy Port (a woman) asks, misspelling Courteney's name in the process, "What do Jennifer Aniston, Kate Hudson and Courtney Cox have in common?" The answer is not any of the obvious flattering observations.

From the NYT: Maybe it's just me, but I could have sworn that some of the ladies who showed up at the Golden Globes on Sunday had put on a little weight. It's almost criminal to name names, because the very actresses whose body-mass indexes have been the subject of endless tabloid speculation are the very ones now sporting sexier curves. You could definitely see the difference if you concentrated solely on the upper arms.]

There were a lot of things I concentrated on while watching the Golden Globes: the incredible dresses, the insane action on the red carpet, the flow of champagne to my glass and the hilarious acceptance speeches. The new layer of "fat" on Jennifer, Courteney or Kate's arms was not on my list. Apparently NYT writer Andy Port has some kind of superhero x-ray vision. Then again, critics are also trashing host Ricky Gervais, citing that he was tasteless and unfunny. This is also odd - I thought he was hilarious and added some much needed levity to the normally all too serious awards ceremony. I'm confused. Did I get drunk and watch the wrong show?

[Photo Credit: Look at those hideous arms! Gerard Butler looks terrified.]

Leave a comment