Parentheticals

Responding to The New York Times article, "The Tastemaker," from a journalistic perspective, I find fault with Lynn Hirschberg's writing for two specific reasons. Hirschberg uses parentheticals in the second and third paragraphs to insert commentary about two fashion designers' sexual orientations. Isn't the mark of good journalism the ability of the writer to convey facts objectively and without commentary or speculation?

In the second paragraph, Hirschberg injects the Pilati quote, “I couldn’t tell my parents I wanted to work in fashion,” he said. “They thought everyone in fashion turned out to be gay or a drug addict. And I became both!” in parenthetical form. She does this as an interjection to the statement of Pilati's wanting to become an architect as a child. Is this interjection necessary to the layout of the story, which may or may not have unfolded naturally on a course of revealing Pilati's sexual preference? In other words, is his homosexuality crucial to the purpose of the story?

The third paragraph moves the story of Pilati's life forward to his adulthood, as Hirshberg introduces the reader to Pierre Berge. Pilati explains Berge's prominence in the Yves Saint Laurent fashion market, but Hirschberg chooses to mention, again parenthetically, that Berge was Mr. Saint Laurent's romantic partner as well as his business partner. Again, this mention seems unnecessary.

While some readers may assume that Pialti and Saint Laurent are homosexual because of their work in the fashion industry, this assumption is rooted in stereotypical thinking and may be proven false. Hirschberg, however, wishes to make it known.