Photo: Getty

It’s easy to write a story that pisses off one or two demographics. But how can you piss off every demographic simultaneously—all for different reasons? At last, the New York Times may have pinpointed how to accomplish this proud feat.

Advertisement

Donald Trump: controversial, sure. There has been so much Trump news, though, that straightforward stories on him have a hard time cracking the mainstream psyche. Instead of attacking the problem directly, the brilliant Newspaper Controversy Artists at the Times have gone double meta: a story about a critique of a critique of Donald Trump. And no matter who you are, you’ll want to critique this critique critique!

The masterpiece of enragement, headlined “Women’s March on Washington Opens Contentious Dialogues About Race,” purports to be a news story about internecine controversies over race that are plaguing the organizers and soon-to-be participants of the Women’s March that will descend upon DC the day after the presidential inauguration. (Representative sample quote: “‘This is a women’s march,’ she said. ‘We’re supposed to be allies in equal pay, marriage, adoption. Why is it now about, ‘White women don’t understand black women’?’”) In fact, it is a Rorschach test in which people of all races, genders, and political persuasions will be able to react with unique forms of outrage. What makes you mad about this story?

Advertisement

  • Men: Women—could they possibly find another thing to complain about?
  • White Women: We’re trying to help out here and you keep preaching to us about being better allies. “How do you know that I’m not reading black poetry?” <——(Real quote!)
  • Black Women: These white women need to shut up for once and read some black poetry!
  • Trump Supporters: Women—shut up, you lost.
  • Trump Opponents: Women—can we not fight each other??
  • Young People: These old people need to check their privilege.
  • Old People: “That phrase — check your privilege — exasperates Ms. Willis. She asked a reporter: ‘Can you please tell me what that means?’”
  • Idealists: Ugh.
  • Cynics: Bullshit.
  • Regular Newspaper Readers: I am angry at this divisiveness!
  • Savvy Newspaper Readers Whose Understanding of the Depth of Cravenness of the Media, for Which News is Merely a Shiny Lure to Dangle in Front of Us in Order to Make Us Dance for Luxury Advertisers: I am angry that people will think this fake ass story about divisiveness is meaningful!

What are your angry thoughts about this? Nothing could be less important.