This morning, in her always thoughtful and eloquent Post column, Andrea Peyser finally blows the whistle on the New York Times' long-standing bias against children. Taking umbrage with the "dreckish" paper's shameful decision to publish Michiko Kakutani's spoiler-ish review of the final Harry Potter novel two full days before the book's official release, Peyser charges the Times with committing "fraud against the children of Planet Earth."
We took a look at today's "Weekend Arts" section and found four more glaring examples of the Times' conspicuous hatred for kids.
1. Norman Mailer, Unbound and on Film: Revisiting His Bigger-Than-Life Selves
If there's one thing kids love, it's Harry Potter. But if there are two things they love, certainly the other is a good retrospective on the filmography of Norman Mailer. In his preview of the one happening in Manhattan this weekend, A.O. Scott totally gives away the ending to Mailer's 1971 film Maidstone.
2. Recorders, Harpsichords and Bassoons, Grown Up
In which Allan Koznin has the gall to imply that a recorder in the hands of an elementary-school student can be responsible for anything but beautiful music.
3. A Smaller Seuss, for Those With Big Imaginations
In his review of Seussical, Charles Isherwood advises against bringing 10- and 11-year olds, intimating that they'd be too nasty and cynical to enjoy it.
4. ‘Potter’ Peeks Prove to Be Genuine
Just in case any children were hoping the spoilers they read on the Internet this week were a hoax, Motoko Rich confirms that the leaked plot details are, in fact, legit. So if those same children were considering giving up literacy for a life of crime now since they can no longer enjoy Deathly Hallows, they just got a one-day head start, courtesy of the New York Times.