That's where they made clear what they thought should really matter to the paper's readers. Matt Richtel filed "Lights, Camera, Lots of Action. Forget the Script" ("With pornographic movies being sold online in chunks, moviemakers are now even less interested in story lines.") because cute-angle on porn is so . . . classy? Tasteful? No, just smutty. Just smutty little boys getting their ha-has and ya-yas and pretending their doing a public service.
We're not done. On the same front page you could find David Leonhardt's "In Health Reform, a Cancer Offers an Acid Test" in which Leonhardt argued that success or failure in any 'fix' on health care in the US could be determined by how it addresses prostate cancer.
Health care reform could be judged, the paper argued, by how it addressed . . . a disease effecting only men. Women don't get prostate cancer, they don't have prostates.
That didn't even cross the minds of the paper's editorial staff because pro-porn fluff and judging health care only by how it effects men seems perfectly normal to them.