Friday, June 02, 2006

Brides Gone Wild

I am going to come right out and admit something. I'm a sucker for the Wall Street Journal. A lot of people think this is a boring paper. The reason for that is they've never read it. Others think it is a right-wing, boring paper.

And yes, it is right wing, but in the old fashioned sense. It puts the right-wing stuff on its editorial page and sticks with the news. In fact, it does such a good job at sticking with the news that Skilling and Lay, infamous executives of Enron, blamed the WSJ for the company's demise. And the WSJ has also done a fantastic exposé this spring of cheating execs who backdate their stock options.

So the WSJ supports old-fashioned Republican values, like free competition and a free market.

That makes them very different from the current administration's support of crony capitalism and modern robber barons.

And, of course, the WSJ also supports brides. In fact, today they had an article titled "Brides Gone Wild." They also included some sensual black and white photos of brides who had, indeed, gone wild.

And I figured what's good enough for the WSJ is good enough for my blog. The article described how brides today opt for somewhat racier pictures than they did in past years.

You can watch the pictures and read the article here. You really should. This is one paragraph from the WSJ article:

"Hours before her son's wedding in New York City two years ago, Lisa Brettschneider was a little taken aback by the scene in the suite of her daughter-in-law-to-be at the Mandarin Oriental hotel. A twentysomething male photographer was snapping photos of the bride, Alison, and her 12 bridesmaids in their underwear. At one point, the bride-to-be posed on the bed in a silky robe. "It was like a Playboy shoot," says Mrs. Brettschneider, who lives in Larchmont, N.Y."

"When the family got the proofs, Mrs. Brettschneider deemed a few images inappropriate for public consumption, including one of Alison's favorite shots, which showed her G-string and back tattoo. "My in-laws weren't too happy about that," says the bride, now 29, who owns a women's clothing showroom in Manhattan. "But it was such a cool shot." Adds her mother-in-law: "I kept saying, 'You're going to have to show them to your kids one day. She didn't put any of those pictures in my album."

And if this article wasn't enough, the editors at the WSJ really had some fun today.

They placed "Brides Gone Wild" on the opposite page of a "Review and Outlook" article aptly named "Making Babies."

The Wall Street Journal today: Not your father's Wall Street Journal. So that's the reason I subscribe not just to the paper version, but also to the online edition, although I really hate that they charge for that access. If you want to try it out free for 8 weeks, click here. I'm not getting a commission. I simply think good newspapers should be supported.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Y'know, I (heart) the Financial Times. ;)

Paul Gigot and the WSJ do absolutely nothing for me, plus it's a lot of paper everyday.

I am such a Liberal.