THE BLOG

Is the Anthony Weiner Article in the New York Times a Feature, or an Advertisement?

04/23/2013 03:47 pm ET | Updated Jun 23, 2013

I find it a bit difficult to judge this Anthony Weiner story in the New York Times on its merits. It's clearly a professionally produced feature, well-written, easy to read, captivating subjects, check check check. But it's also clearly a marketing vehicle for Weiner. The story even says

By agreeing to be interviewed, Weiner and Abedin [his wife] would seem to be trying to give voters what they want -- and gauge public reaction. [...]

Weiner and Abedin have realized, it seems, that the only way out is through. So they have agreed to talk -- and talk and talk -- for the first time about what happened and why and what it looks like from the inside when your world comes crashing down because of, as Weiner puts it, "one fateful Tweet."

Weiner is planning a comeback to public life, and 'get a feature in the New York Times' is obviously a bullet point on his to do list. He and his wife must have carefully planned what they were going to say, the story they wanted to tell. The fact that the journalist was aware of this doesn't change the story's fundamental purpose.

But what's even more interesting is the tone of sombre bewilderment everyone in the story uses when discussing what Anthony Weiner actually did.

On Friday night, May 27, a photograph of a man's torso wearing gray boxer briefs and an obvious erection appeared on Weiner's official Twitter account. [...]

It was a sex scandal without any actual sex -- more creepy than anything else. But it was hard for people to get their heads around: an affair is one thing, but sending crotch pictures to a virtual stranger? Mike Capuano, a congressman from Massachusetts and Weiner's roommate in Washington for many years, spoke for a lot of people when he told me, "He obviously did something incredibly stupid that, honestly, I still don't understand." [...]

Weiner fielded a lot of calls from friends and colleagues, many of them offering advice. One prominent state politician called to confess that he was a sex addict and urged Weiner to join his support group. [...]

Is what he did really so extreme? We live in a world where 16-year-olds get tips on sexting from talk show hosts, where 'manage a trois' is more familiar to Americans than 'café au lait', where 'cyber' is a verb. Is it really so hard to believe that sending strangers naked pictures of yourself is a turn-on?

But despite the occasional flash of anger or lingering disbelief, [his wife] told me that she had forgiven him. When I asked how long it took for her to think she might be able to get over what her husband did, she said, "That's a really good question," and then took a minute. "At the time, we were very early in our marriage, but it was an old friendship. He was my best friend. In addition to that, I loved him. There was a deep love there, but it was coupled with a tremendous feeling of betrayal."

It took a lot of work, both mentally and in the way we engage with each other, for me to get to a place where I said: 'O.K., I'm in. I'm staying in this marriage.'

Here was a man I respected, I loved, was the father of this child inside of me, and he was asking me for a second chance. And I'm not going to say that was an easy or fast decision that I made. It's been almost two years now.

I did spend a lot of time saying and thinking: 'I. Don't. Understand.' And it took a long time to be able to sit on a couch next to Anthony and say, 'O.K., I understand and I forgive.' It was the right choice for me. I didn't make it lightly."

Committing to someone who's embarrassed you in public is one thing. But I hope people aren't throwing away otherwise good marriages over a few text messages and a fetish that is, at most, one standard deviation away from vanilla.

Ultimately, though, the most interesting thing about this story is that it exists at all. It's 8,300 words of a politician talking not about his policies, his experience, his goals, but his marriage. This is what redemption looks like in America in 2013. Don't convince me to vote for you, convince me you're a good husband. Convince me you're in therapy.

By that criteria, the story works. It takes two far-off people, public figures, and puts them into a familiar story of love tested and renewed. It takes something strange and makes it relatable. That's what all the best commercials do.