Is the New York Times advertising itself through the rhetorical vehicle of separating JK Rowling from her own artistic creation/ intellectual property?
Is the New York Times advertising itself through the rhetorical vehicle of separating JK Rowling from her own artistic creation/ intellectual property?
claytoncraddock.substack.com
As we are introduced to this person’s passion for articles on themes such as 'queer love in color,” a suggested newspaper title flashes up: 'Imagining Harry Potter without its creator.' It appears to be the only implicit reference to any notable individual in this ad. It seems to be a deliberate swipe at the outspoken author whose critics have indeed tried to erase her works.
The line has been picked out to adorn advertising boards in New York, suggesting that the paper knows exactly what it is doing by highlighting Rowling. The NYT is running its campaign under the tagline of 'independent journalism' — even though by blindly following the herd, it doesn't suggest much in the way of independent thought.
How can this be considered remotely appropriate as an advertisement for the ‘paper of record’ or journalism at all?
Is the New York Times advertising itself through the rhetorical vehicle of separating JK Rowling from her own artistic creation/ intellectual property?
Is the New York Times advertising itself through the rhetorical vehicle of separating JK Rowling from her own artistic creation/ intellectual property?
Is the New York Times advertising itself through the rhetorical vehicle of separating JK Rowling from her own artistic creation/ intellectual property?
As we are introduced to this person’s passion for articles on themes such as 'queer love in color,” a suggested newspaper title flashes up: 'Imagining Harry Potter without its creator.' It appears to be the only implicit reference to any notable individual in this ad. It seems to be a deliberate swipe at the outspoken author whose critics have indeed tried to erase her works.
The line has been picked out to adorn advertising boards in New York, suggesting that the paper knows exactly what it is doing by highlighting Rowling. The NYT is running its campaign under the tagline of 'independent journalism' — even though by blindly following the herd, it doesn't suggest much in the way of independent thought.
How can this be considered remotely appropriate as an advertisement for the ‘paper of record’ or journalism at all?
Leave a comment