This morning, Fox News posed a question to its Twitter followers: Is a J.Crew ad showing a woman painting her son’s toenails “crossing the line”?

Advertising

In the ad, J. Crew president / executive creative director (described as a “designer” in Fox News’ Tweet) Jenna Lyons is shown painting her son Beckett’s toenails hot pink. The copy reads “Quality Time. ‘Lucky for me, I ended up with a boy whose favorite color is pink. Toenail painting is way more fun in neon.'”

We’re, frankly, more concerned with Beckett’s hipster glasses than his painted toenails, but we wonder: Is it Fox News’ place to moralize about the social implications of painting one’s son’s nails, or encouraging his interest in a color now often associated with little girls? It’s natural that people will want to weigh in on something like this and ask questions like “What will his classmates think if and when they see this?” or “Well, what if the ad

showed a little girl playing with trucks instead?” But is it up to a news outlet to lead that discussion, especially when the language it chooses to use – i.e. “crossing the line” – already insinuates its own view on the matter? We also wonder what the reaction would be if another outlet – like say, oh, MSNBC – decided to highlight the ad in an encouraging manner.

We guess our question is this: Do you enjoy or resent it when news outlets on either side of the aisle make their sociopolitical beliefs known in their reporting and via social media? Is this good for discussion? What about when companies and brands, like J. Crew here, present ads that provide, however subtly, political or social commentary?

And what do you think about J. Crews’ ad?

Tags: Fox News, gender, J. Crew, Twitter