[flagged]
...which didn't come into my comment in the slightest? It's stupid no matter who the mayor is.
Your response is indicative of exactly the problem [1]: you're leaping to a partisan conclusion, because I dared to criticize something related to politics. I remember when New Yorkers made fun of crap like this.
[1] to be specific: the reflexive political toxicity that is melting everything into a morass of partisan goo.
Nope. Premise is backwards. Why does the mayor belong in a story about the intricacies of printing road signs? Is the mayor a road sign enthusiast? Did he create the road-sign printing system? No? No relation at all, other than seeing an opportunity to inject himself into a story?
Yeah, maybe don't include it, then.
> showing up as a mascot for a random human interest story is the primary function of a mayor.
That's certainly what politicians try to do. You, as a journalist, are not required to take the bait. Sometimes it's just cool to have a nice little story about the people at the sign factory.
https://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/nyc-dot-sign-shop
I wonder if anything has changed with how they make signs since 10 years ago. I can't access the NYT article.
> This instance only stands to you because it makes you uncomfortable.
It doesn't make me "uncomfortable". I think it's stupid.
> Own up to the specific reason for that instead of acting like the existence of "politics" in a general sense is somehow evil.
Politics are not evil. Including them in everything, when they don't need to be included, is just bad journalism. And by the way...I would say this if the mayor in question was on any side of the ideoligical spectrum. Would you?
At least to me that's just a human interest element. The mayor is a notable person, it suggests something about popularity and ties it to a name the reader already might know. It's the same as saying a celebrity shops there or whatever.
This case is a little different because NYC is a big city, but what's partisan about it? They don't mention his politics or views at all. He likes a sports team and he likes this shop. It's being mentioned as a human interest detail, because he's a minor celebrity with some readers. This is why it seems like you have some kind of political opinion about him - if you didn't, why would it be notably political at all?
Over here in our current universe, we’re talking about one of the largest cities on earth, and one of the most divisive political figures in the nation.
So yes, it’s both unnecessary and partisan. It’s an article about road signs. Exactly how unrelated does the article need to be before you’d accept this kind of thing as crass?
Oooga booga! Mamdani! Oh no! The politics of it! Help!
Write a letter to the fucking editor if it ruffles your feathers that much. I'm sure they'll be waiting with bated breath to hear your objection.
Give it up, man. Go touch some grass.
Mature. I'm sure you'd react similarly if the article talked about a politician you don't like.
The fact that it's a light and whimsical article about street signs is exactly the point. The political content is completely unnecessary to the story, and exists only because the mayor had a PR event.