News We Disapprove Of
            

            Good morning Jodi,

            I love evergreen headlines, those perpetually blooming stories that could
run in any newspaper, any year (an example: "New Jersey Official Indicted, Mob
Ties Alleged"). Well, the front page of today's New York Times provides
an all-time classic of the genre: "Pediatricians Urge Limiting TV Watching."
Stop the presses! No, on second thought, didn't I read that same story in the
Times in 1979? Or was it 1959?

            Back in the old days, like 1979 or 1959, the Times editorial page was
the repository of the conventional wisdom written in a uniquely ponderous style
that combined voice-of-God self-confidence and the bromides of a
foundation-backed task-force report. All that has mercifully changed as the
edit page has been transformed under the editorship of Howell Raines. But every
so often, the Times goes completely retro with a return to
yes-but-on-the-other-hand prose. Today, the edit page finally weighed in on
Hillary's Talk interview, devoting infinitely more space to the
"Intimate Hillary" than was deemed appropriate by the news section. (I have
long thought that the Times should handle hot-potato stories like this
with a special daily page called: "News We Disapprove Of.") But the
Times editorial concluded with a sentence so pompous and so
non-committal that it should be immediately be added to the syllabus in
journalism schools.

            Jodi, parse this one if you dare: "In a contest involving two personalities
as distinctive as Mrs. Clinton and Mayor Rudolph Guiliani, the potential
Republican nominee, every citizen will have to reach a decision that balances
all aspects of a candidate's abilities, issue positions and personal
qualities."

            This morning I was overjoyed to snag the last copy of the New York
Post at my little Washington newsstand. That's where I learned of the
latest circulation-boosting gambit by Modern Maturity , that
up-with-aging monthly published by the AARP. The big story this month on the
senior circuit is an exclusive listing of the 50 "sexiest" celebrities who are
over 50 years old. The winners include Richard Gere and Susan Sarandon ("steam
heat"), Julie Christie and Tom Selleck ("anytime sexy"), Donna Karan and Louis
Rukeyser ("sexy in suits") and Lauren Bacall and Paul Newman ("vintage
sexy").

            I'm 52 years old, balding, well-rounded, and doomed to always misplace my
reading glasses. But I'm also old enough to know that sexual allure does not
necessarily dim with age. (At last year's Time magazine anniversary
gala, I found myself positively tongue-tied, embarrassingly adolescent in my
awkwardness, on being introduced to Lauren Bacall.) So why does the "Modern
Maturity" spread leave me so uncomfortable? Would I feel different if this sexy
plus-50 cavalcade appeared in People magazine?

            My guess--and let's not delve too deeply into my psyche--is that I'm
offended by the AARP's role in sponsoring this silliness. There's something
about this middle-aged spread (the magazine's, not mine) that suggests a
desperate need to join the self-esteem movement. It all seems, well,
Viagra-esque.

            Jodi, any reaction from a younger and fitter generation?