The veneer is getting thin as far as plausible deniability goes. This isn't even the first one, like that hoax article. They actually had a breakdown of expenses a high-powered exec faced and why that meant he/she couldn't be held to ONLY a $500K salary. (OMG NOT TAKE TWO VACATIONS A YEAR FOR $16K? HOW WILL THE RICH LIIIIIIIIVE!?!?)
These "exposes" into credit/financial concerns seem to be quite effective at drumming up middle/lower class outrage, so you could argue that was the point. Like, the NYT is saying, "look at this thing you might not have known about, how does that make you feel?" But as you said, their "objective" look lends sympathy to people for whom it is impossible to feel pity for--the rich, the spoiled, those who prey on the financially weak/emotionally fragile. It's hard to detangle one's self, as a reporter, from the cares of the people you're involved with interviewing, but an objective report would make an effort to show more than just stunned/conciliatory reactions to a program of (essentially) organized theft. Because, obviously, if we are outraged, some of the people being called must be. But all that we see are these supportive (even if they're questionably supportive) responses and coy, evasive answers about the legality of what these assholes are doing.
The part where the reporter talks about these people specifically training themselves as grief counselors for the purpose of trading something that could be free--you can be counseled on grief by your friends, family, ministers, strangers just as effectively--for the obligation to pay them is particularly abhorrent. This is basically skated over in order to focus on the poor dears who need massages to get through their day. (So, wow, they actually have a pretty good working environment on top of being evil?)
no subject
These "exposes" into credit/financial concerns seem to be quite effective at drumming up middle/lower class outrage, so you could argue that was the point. Like, the NYT is saying, "look at this thing you might not have known about, how does that make you feel?" But as you said, their "objective" look lends sympathy to people for whom it is impossible to feel pity for--the rich, the spoiled, those who prey on the financially weak/emotionally fragile. It's hard to detangle one's self, as a reporter, from the cares of the people you're involved with interviewing, but an objective report would make an effort to show more than just stunned/conciliatory reactions to a program of (essentially) organized theft. Because, obviously, if we are outraged, some of the people being called must be. But all that we see are these supportive (even if they're questionably supportive) responses and coy, evasive answers about the legality of what these assholes are doing.
The part where the reporter talks about these people specifically training themselves as grief counselors for the purpose of trading something that could be free--you can be counseled on grief by your friends, family, ministers, strangers just as effectively--for the obligation to pay them is particularly abhorrent. This is basically skated over in order to focus on the poor dears who need massages to get through their day. (So, wow, they actually have a pretty good working environment on top of being evil?)