NY Times tries to make GQ seem relevant

I’d never be one to suggest someone is a homosexual…it’s not my nature…but I’m gonna say the person in the above story has a personal secret.

The guy in the photo looks very awkward, and like he's trying too hard. I wonder if the photographer is the same person who shot the new NYT editor a while back?

If reminds me of the media in general trying to make that RODENT Timothee Chalamet seem relevant.

The ironic mustache and the Tell Me You Live In Brooklyn Without Telling Me You Live In Brooklyn tattoo on his hand pretty much scream "I am a rich suburban white boy (Buckhead) who went to an Ivy League school (Columbia) and have a six figure job, but I SWEAR I am a cool dude!!!"

R5- Another words he's a FAUX-hemian

This too

[quote] As a teenager, he was often on the basketball or tennis court, and he played drums in “a bunch of different rock ’n’ roll bands,” he said.

If there was a Truth Filter that line would be adjusted to read

[quote] As a teenager, he was often on the basketball or tennis court, and he played drums in “a bunch of different rock ’n’ roll bands,” GQ's publicist suggested he say in order to play up his "regular guy"-ness and that GQ was not just a magazine for gay men

It is odd though that she wrote an entire profile and did not once mention anything about his interest in or philosophy about fashion--was this a lifelong thing, did he just figure it out when he got the job, who are his style icons.. nada.

Yeah exactly, nobody under 60 knows what a magazine is.

^This is why they hate us.