Hey, have you heard about Marco Rubio’s “cute boots”? What, you haven’t? What’s wrong, don’t you read the New York Times?
Because the NYT is featuring three — count ’em, three — articles on Marco Rubio’s boots. One bears the headline Marco Rubio’s Shiny Boots Stir Up the Presidential Race. Another, by the “Times Insider,” is headlined Marco Rubio’s ‘Cute Boots’ and Other Campaign Issues. And the third, by “First Draft,” is headlined Marco Rubio Reacts to Those Boots That Were Made for Talking. Hey, I get it — that’s a play on the Nancy Sinatra anthem, These Boots Are Made for Walking! Pretty clever!
And in case you haven’t had enough of Marco Rubio’s boots (I use his full name because apparently the NYT style manual requires that headlines bear a candidate’s full name when the subject of the article is footwear) from those three testaments to quality journalism by the publication that has pretensions of being America’s Newspaper of Record, you can run a Google search and find articles where the other Republican candidates are razzing Rubio for the coverage his boots have received.
As for the boots themselves — well, they’re boots. To my untrained eye, they look vaguely like Beatle boots, rather than cowboy boots. And in any case, who gives a flying fig about boots? With the Middle East teetering on the brink, North Korea just claiming that it exploded a hydrogen bomb, and the stock market suffering through its worst start to a year ever, the New York Times thinks Rubio’s boots are worth three articles? Have I somehow been transferred to an alternative universe?
If you’re wondering why America’s newspapers are struggling and losing circulation, look no further.