I think that's a bit extreme, but as a long time NY Times reader I can certainly attest that outside the main news sections it has become increasingly "fluffy". The Times, like many mainstream newspapers, is desperate to stem readership declines that are most severe in younger age categories. So it tries harder and harder to be "hip" by being more and more frivilous.
Originally Posted by JBrunner
And true, as noted earlier, this article was situated in the "House & Home Section" so the focus on the house and sheets and bath etc. was appropriate. The discussion of his lack of a love life and "repellant nature" though was not.
It would have been a much more interesting article for us here if it had been written by the NY Times photographer who had attended the workshop and took the tintypes!