NY Times Got Pranked By the 'Dating a Banker Anonymous' Girls

  • Bookmark and Share

It's official: The New York Times got pranked by the girls of "Dating a Banker Anonymous," referred to in a fizzy Times profile last month as a "support group" dedicated to women whose "monthly Bergdorf's allowance has been halved."

Linda Holmes, blogging at National Public Radio, was dubious from the start: "Isn't it totally obvious that this is a put-on?" She dismissed the idea of a "support group" and figured the people behind the blog were angling for a book deal. The Times responded to Holmes, defending the piece and snottily concluding:

I'm not sure what is thought might be fake about this. Ravi did talk to some of the men to verify the relationships and get their side.

But Holmes's skepticism has been vindicated, based on the "Editor's Note" in Wednesday's Times admitting the January 28 article by freelance reporter Ravi Somaiya was overblown:

An article on Jan. 28 about women who commiserated over dating Wall Street bankers caught in the financial crisis described a group they had formed, Dating a Banker Anonymous, as a support group. That is the name of their blog. Its creators originally told The Times that about 30 women had participated, but since publication, they have said that all involved were friends. Laney Crowell, one of the women who started the blog, said in the article that it was "very tongue in cheek;" she has since described it as a satire that embellishes true experiences for effect. Had the nature of the blog been made clear at the outset, the article would have described it accordingly, not as a support group.

More likely, the article would not have been written. Even more explicit was the explanation Newsweek's Tony Dokopuil got from site cofounder Laney Crowell, who

...says that what the Times described as a "support group" of about 30 women is actually a full-blown parody -- and it's at least partly fictionalized. There is no real support community, no regular meetings and the blog is written by Crowell and her lawyer sidekick Megan Petrus, who concoct entries out of a mixture of their own experiences, stories of people who email the site, and anecdotes of girls they meet socially. They don't fact check the emails, or the gossip, and the posts are embellished and exaggerated for added laughs. At times, details are plucked from thin air to give the stories a satirical edge.

And the New York Times fell for it all.

—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They fell for this...Heck

They fell for this...Heck the NYTs seems to be falling all over the place.

I just want to see a permanent hole they fall in and can't get out of.

I know, I know, they will scream for their messiah to bail them out (with tax-payers $$$)...along with other papers that are going belly-up.

Can't be!

But, but, how can this be? Maureen Dowd vouched for the group!

slick... ROFL...if MoDo

slick...

ROFL...if MoDo says so, why it just has to be fact dontcha' know...and who pays her salary?

Bye bye

And the dominos continue to fall. Another one bites the dust.

D

P.S. Where's the frigging open thread? It used to be open around 9-10 AM.

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

Hi DFTT... I heard about

Hi DFTT...

I heard about that also...what the 4th since Dec.

I'm just hoping the NYTs is the next to join the leftist enemy within.

I don't know where the OT is today...haven't been here all that long myself...may be coming soon.

Did they fall for it or was it just so similar to what they do e

“...who concoct entries out of a mixture
of their own experiences, stories of people who email the site, and
anecdotes of girls they meet socially. They don't fact check the
emails, or the gossip, and the posts are embellished and exaggerated
for added laughs. At times, details are plucked from thin air to give
the stories a satirical edge.”

Isn't that the definition of how the
New York Times operates?