Dec 14, 2007
The New York Times has just published the most outrageous essay in recent history of travel journalism
The article I'm referring to filled the entire first page of last weekend's New York Times travel section, and then spread out over part of seven more pages. Its headline read: "The 53 Places to Go in 2008." But instead of citing culture, history, natural wonders, political interest, or interaction with people, as the primary reason for its 53 geographical choices, it clearly implied that the arrival of upscale deluxe hotels was the main reason for visiting most of its nominees.
In no fewer than 34 of the 43 destinations listed in its printed travel section (the other 10 appeared online), luxury living was singled out as the obvious draw of the destination. The words "luxury," "upscale," "high end," "Ritz-Carlton," "lavish," "well-heeled," "ultra-exclusive," "high ticket," "chic," "upper class," "posh," "opulent," and the like, appear either repeatedly ("luxury" and "luxurious" are big favorites) or at least once in the great majority of write-ups; and the more noble goals of travel, a learning experience that expands understanding, are mainly dismissed in favor of the pleasures of discos and designer hotels.
If you, like many, are not interested in ultra-costly hotels, is there anything for you to read in the travel section of The New York Times? Precious little. I wonder whether any major editor of the Times scans those pages or is even faintly aware of what that section has become. As someone with a regard for travel, who looks upon travel as a precious birthright of our generation, I want to protest against what a new team of mindless poseurs have done to the once-esteemed travel pages of our leading newspaper.
Write and read comments about this post.
- St. Lucia? You go there because "big-name resorts with $1,000 rooms are on the way."
- Verbier, in Switzerland? It "will get decidedly more upper class" when Richard Branson's latest chalet-hotel opens, charging "as little as £35,250 a week, well over $70,000."
- Courchevel in the French Alps? Developers are upping the ante with "rustic-chic apartments starting at ... $1.95 million."
In no fewer than 34 of the 43 destinations listed in its printed travel section (the other 10 appeared online), luxury living was singled out as the obvious draw of the destination. The words "luxury," "upscale," "high end," "Ritz-Carlton," "lavish," "well-heeled," "ultra-exclusive," "high ticket," "chic," "upper class," "posh," "opulent," and the like, appear either repeatedly ("luxury" and "luxurious" are big favorites) or at least once in the great majority of write-ups; and the more noble goals of travel, a learning experience that expands understanding, are mainly dismissed in favor of the pleasures of discos and designer hotels.
If you, like many, are not interested in ultra-costly hotels, is there anything for you to read in the travel section of The New York Times? Precious little. I wonder whether any major editor of the Times scans those pages or is even faintly aware of what that section has become. As someone with a regard for travel, who looks upon travel as a precious birthright of our generation, I want to protest against what a new team of mindless poseurs have done to the once-esteemed travel pages of our leading newspaper.
Write and read comments about this post.
Fifty years ago, 
Arthur Frommer is generally acknowledged to be the nation's foremost travel authority. He is the founder of the
