New York Times Hammered for Paper Thin Report on Billie Eilish Vogue Cover ‘Controversy’

British Vogue
The New York Times is facing the wrath of several journalists who are accusing the publication of creating a fake controversy surrounding Billie Eilish’s new British Vogue cover.
In a story titled “On That Bombshell Billie Eilish Cover for British Vogue,” the Times argued that some fans of the 19-year-old singer — known for wearing oversized track suits and hoodies — “feel betrayed” by her showing off her body in a corset on the cover of the fashion magazine.
The only example cited by the Times was the Twitter account @jetztissesraus, which had written, “Before: unique, different, a class of her own. After: mainstream, exchangeable, slick and polished. Why?”
Vice News correspondent Roberto Aram Ferdman, who was previously a reporter for The Washington Post, brought attention to the Times’s lack of substantial evidence to denote a true controversy.
He tweeted, “The New York Times published an article about how some people don’t like that Billie Eilish Vogue cover. And the entire thing hinges on one person (bot?) who didn’t like it: a Twitter user with 3 followers who joined the platform in December and has only tweeted in English once.”
The New York Times published an article about how some people don’t like that Billie Eilish Vogue cover. And the entire thing hinges on one person (bot?) who didn’t like it: a Twitter user with 3 followers who joined the platform in December and has only tweeted in English once pic.twitter.com/Xx3Nann1Sz
— Roberto Aram Ferdman (@robferdman) May 5, 2021
It should be noted, @jetztissesraus boasts a single follower as of this writing, and the account has been locked.
Several other journalists followed suit in calling out the Times for forming an arguably sexist and sensationalist narrative based on one comment from a random, unverified and possibly fake Twitter account.
Reporters from The Daily Beast, The Atlantic, The New Republic, GQ and Rolling Stone were among those who weighed in on the Times’s questionable editorial choice.
not everything needs to have its dark side explored. some things might just be ok.
— Derek Thompson (@DKThomp) May 5, 2021
Jesus Christ
— Christopher Ingraham (@_cingraham) May 5, 2021
isn’t this like maybe half of Times trend pieces?
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) May 5, 2021
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) May 5, 2021
lol what the absolute fuck https://t.co/C0aKftv0mv
— Jason Linkins (@dceiver) May 5, 2021
pro tip to this writer: you can search tweets by not just keywords, but also numbers of faves and retweets. it’s very easy. https://t.co/WpKey2NCXX
— Gita Jackson (@xoxogossipgita) May 5, 2021
This is a major peep peeve of mine and has become so normalized in journalism that even the NY Times does it and it’s absolutely pathetic https://t.co/HaCt17wIrb
— Insanul Ahmed (@Incilin) May 5, 2021
internet journalism is so broken ? https://t.co/TFmFTaMDkR
— ????? ??????? (@grantrindner) May 5, 2021
I haven’t been able to get this piece from Parker Molloy out of my head for the last six years: https://t.co/VeZeIK8O1l
And it keeps happening.
Tweets from randos are. not. sources. No outlet (especially not NYT!) should treat them as such. https://t.co/VlxO3WJK43
— Eric Ravenscraft (@LordRavenscraft) May 5, 2021
Ok, we’re done with this bullshit now, yeah? https://t.co/FagE45n2Qt
— Hank Green (@hankgreen) May 5, 2021
This is what passes for journalism https://t.co/fAxFacib6H
— Nando (@nandorvila) May 5, 2021
Contrived controversies to keep us clicking. Sorry for being cynical, I’ve been around since trolls were only found in comments. https://t.co/r7d4yoI1MH
— Alizah Salario (@Alirosa) May 5, 2021
The NYT loves to take extremely low-engagement tweets and write long, alarmist pieces about how it reflects some greater trend. I did an article a year ago on how they took a tweet with 1 RT/2 faves and wrote a long creed on how it reflects scary disinfo:https://t.co/s83kY4q9Zk https://t.co/v1K9c5RtqN
— Aric Toler (@AricToler) May 5, 2021
V embarrassing. This is why I thoroughly research every aspect of a potential story before I even begin to write. https://t.co/VKr2EJ1vlz
— Tony M. Centeno ?✍? (@_tonyMC) May 5, 2021
Journalists having to crowbar discourse and division onto any pop or political moment to stoke the ‘-and the internet is mad!’ clicks is most tiresome https://t.co/OzxtSc3LiV
— Anna Cafolla (@AnnaCafolla) May 5, 2021
The weirdest part of this is that I saw plenty of folks talk about their discomfort with the photoshoot and the author decided to go with… this user. Baffling. https://t.co/5koqGIc0Cw
— Nick Stellini (@StelliniTweets) May 5, 2021
This article would’ve been stronger if the writer had used a first-person voice. The phrase “not everybody” wouldn’t have to work so hard, the referenced tweet wouldn’t be necessary — and value-judgement words like “shopworn” and tinctured” “cliche” wouldn’t be so out of place. https://t.co/GGoJYeTA5e
— Mallory Yu (@mallory_yu) May 5, 2021
this is one of the things I found most frustrating about working in media — this tendency among editors to want takes where no takes exist, resulting in writers having to contort themselves like this …. not everything is going to spawn a discourse, many things are simply fine https://t.co/QWfBOQxN9G
— Callie Beusman (@cal_beu) May 5, 2021
when i rt an anonymous account with few followers and no digital footprint because they agree with a dumb, minor argument i made https://t.co/K8vwl4NVsJ
— Leor Galil (@imLeor) May 5, 2021
The Times seems like its reached a point where it actually employs too many people (or, really, just has misallocated the people it has) and so it ends up with these weird make-work articles. https://t.co/Lz6nDWxnLI
— Morgan Clendaniel (@MClendaniel) May 5, 2021
Stop writing news stories entirely about Twitter controversies https://t.co/1kmlOt6KG3
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) May 5, 2021