By | March 15 2013 12:20 PM

The horrifying story of a Manhattan mother (and lawyer, if that’s important to know) who leapt to her death with her baby in her arms (the baby survived) got an unsettling treatment from the New York Times, which has the definitive story on Cynthia Wachenheim’s suicide and the post-partum psychosis that appears to be behind it. As Gawker pointed out, “The Times is, throughout its article, bizarrely focused on brand names and Style Section asides, as though we might want to rush out and purchase the model of baby carrier into which Keston [the baby] was strapped.” Indeed, while brand names are only mentioned a couple of times, the profile does seem to be reinforcing a unfortunate stereotype about the media by hitting the reader over the head with cues that its subject, while far from wealthy by Manhattan standards, was a well-educated, upper-middle class success story -- the article states her salary and the price she paid for her apartment, in a “new sleek building” in Harlem. Is it just me, or does the Times want to make absolutely sure that everyone understands that this woman was not black and/or poor (should her Harlem address lead anyone to a false conclusion?) and, therefore, agree her death is somehow more newsworthy? Also, did the reporters really need to interview her apparently shell-shocked husband less than 24 hours after she died? The story is not open to reader comments, and it’s easy to see why. (New York Times, Gawker)