Some Clinton supporters didn’t hesitate to blame the New York Times for the part it played in Donald Trump’s election by reporting on Hillary’s home-brew email server, thus bringing it to the attention of the public, not to mention Congress.
We’ll never know what difference it would have made had the Times chosen to withhold the story until the election — so it seems shocking now, a week later, that the New York Times is alerting the voting public to the effect of a Trump presidency on the world’s top fashion designers, who were certainly looking forward to dazzling with world with Hillary’s inauguration pantsuit.
The political and social establishments are not the only establishments the Trumps have ignored, @VVFriedman writes https://t.co/FOtOD59Vp6
— The New York Times (@nytimes) November 13, 2016
Sure, the article is tucked away in the Times Style section, but it certainly tackles its subject matter with all the seriousness of a drone strike; no, really:
This new reality has left fashion feeling bereft, in a way that goes beyond backing the losing candidate and to the core of the industry’s identity.
…
Now the industry has to wrestle with what happens next: how it defines itself if it is marginalized — reduced to mere decoration — in a Trump administration, and whether there will be repercussions for either its pledge of allegiance to the president-elect’s opponent or some of the more angry postelection statements designers have made on social media.
Recommended
Plenty have said it over the past week, but it bears repeating: they just don’t get it.
https://twitter.com/gdarci300/status/797832832798388224
OMG I just read an article that said this paper was going to report the news.
— John A. Maher (@J_A_Maher) November 13, 2016
Pretty sure fashion + its intersection with Washington elite is the absolute least fucking thing that matters right now
— Derek Moore (@DerekMoore3) November 13, 2016
https://twitter.com/flashg3rdon/status/797769148776337409
????? Hilary's pant suits are fashion? F'n A. How ridiculous.
— Clark Cummings (@ClarkCummings6) November 13, 2016
The Times notes that, “ultimately, it was the baseball cap that became the sartorial symbol that represented the winning campaign.” That’s true, but don’t forget that Hillary’s first campaign store offering wasn’t the “Made for History” line of designer T-shirts, but the “Grillary Clinton” barbecue apron and the “Chillary Clinton” beer koozie — no wonder the fashion industry was so anxious to dress Madam President Clinton.
Mrs Trump buys off the rack clothes! How normal can you be? When you are rich just shows you don't have to show it
— QuoVadis (@QuoVadis561) November 13, 2016
once again. You don't get it! It's why they are able to connect to regular people!
— Liz Ruffin (@liz_ruffin) November 13, 2016
That’s not the only thing that has the New York Times nervous. What’s going to happen to Washington, D.C. itself after the Obamas — “African-American, youthful, attractive and urbane” — head back to Chicago? Will the “influx of highly educated young, gay and diverse professionals” become a mass exodus?
https://twitter.com/heatherwilhelm/status/798166818544386048
https://twitter.com/Grumpy_Hoosier/status/798168823803346944
Sorry…as I was saying, more furrow-browed hand-wringing mularkey from the navel-gazers. #hyphen
— Sean Cullen (@Seanakin) November 14, 2016
Is the NYT actively trying to change my mind about Trump? Because more of these stories might do the trick.
— Just Some Doc (@forbiddencomma) November 14, 2016
Join the conversation as a VIP Member