![]() The Well desk tackles relationships, whether they are romantic, familial or platonic, from an evidence-based approach and recently hired a reporter to cover the beat. Readers may receive insight from Modern Love writers, but The Times still calls in experts when necessary. ![]() Jones said, which is part of the reason Modern Love has attracted a global audience and has been adapted into a popular podcast and television series. There’s something universally human about love, Mr. Though there is still a Times taste barometer (submissions occasionally get racy, but never too explicit), the columns also provide room to explore topics that were previously considered taboo. Modern Love has found success over the years because of the vulnerability of its writers, who sift through love’s complications and offer readers wisdom. Jones said, were much stronger than the criticism. But some readers, going through similar experiences, appreciated the validation - and those responses, Mr. Some readers, he said, felt that something so private should remain that way. Jones recalled the first Modern Love column that garnered a widespread response from readers: a bracing account of a woman going through a messy divorce. Instead of reading about dating and sex from a journalist, readers now could engage with personal, honest and raw, first-person accounts from people navigating their own love stories. “I do remember thinking,” he said, “does this really belong in The Times?” ![]() Jones said in an interview, and The Times wanted to dabble in that type of material by inviting people to write about their love lives. The essays were “bold, controversial and explicit,” Mr. Jones and his wife, Cathi Hanauer, had each edited a book of essays on marriage, hers from the female perspective and his from the male. And so a new era of love coverage began, one that is still evolving today.Ī big change came in 2004 when the Styles desk brought on Daniel Jones to lead a new column, Modern Love. ![]() It had to capture the nuance and face the messiness head-on. One could argue that these articles are capsules of their time as social mores have evolved, so has coverage of them.Īround the turn of the century, The Times realized the need to modernize its approach to the love beat coverage had to be more approachable and less stilted. And it’s easy, in 2023, to reflect on some of the old “rules” as head-scratchers - and others as flat-out ridiculous. Through the history of The Times, journalists have ventured into the amorphous arena of love and all that comes with it: dating, sex, relationships and marriage. (Though some women, instead of putting their credit cards down at the table, preferred to slyly offer it to the maître d’hôtel before the meal to not bruise their dates’ egos.) There was even hope for single women over 35, according to one author of a book on marriage - if only they outgrow their “fantasies of knights in armor.” (Otherwise, you might look “embalmed.”) Women are allowed to date men who are shorter - gasp - and even younger than them. To have success dating in New York City, don’t order a sandwich at dinner and pick a restaurant with candlelight. In the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, New York Times articles slowly, and painfully, updated the rules of courtship. ![]() Times Insider explains who we are and what we do and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |