Ms., Martians and Guacamole: Their First Time in The Times
- NYT marks 175 years of 'eyewitness journalism' by confessing it took until 1986 to accept 'Ms.' — a full 15 years after the magazine debuted, proving glacial pace is a house style.
- The paper's first mention of guacamole? Apparently a culinary revelation worthy of a front-page alert, as if avocados weren't already smashing brunch by then.
- From the Big Bang to the bicycle, the list reads like a greatest hits of 'things that were happening anyway while the Gray Lady was still deciding if facts were trendy.'
- Color maps in the Times: a historic first, presumably following intense internal debate on whether the rainbow was a passing fad.
- The 1901 Springfield paper proposed 'Ms.' first; the Times, ever the trendsetter, waited 85 years to catch up, likely to ensure the concept had 'legs.'
Brief Summary
In a stunning display of self-aware editorial navel-gazing, The New York Times celebrates 175 years of allegedly groundbreaking journalism by cataloging its first mentions of things like guacamole, Ms., and Martians — as if these weren't already ancient history by the time the paper's typesetters figured out the spelling. The piece reads like a museum of missed opportunities, with the highlight being the paper's adamant refusal to use 'Ms.' until 1986, a mere 15 years after the feminist magazine of the same name had already colonized the culture. The subtext is deafening: The Times has always been a lagging indicator, not a leading one, and it's now monetizing that incompetence as heritage. Honestly, it's a bold strategy, Cotton — let's see if it pays off with a Pulitzer for 'most belatedly relevant retrospective.' The real eyebrow-raiser is the 1901 origin story, where a Springfield newspaper casually fixed the English language's sexism problem, and the Times just sat on that revolution like a hen on a doorknob for most of a century.
Why This Matters
This is a grim reminder that every progressive norm you take for granted — from calling women 'Ms.' to eating avocado toast without judgment — was reportedly considered 'too radical' by the nation's paper of record until the cultural tide was already burying it. It's a masterclass in how institutions mistake inertia for objectivity, and it should make you question what obvious truths the Times is currently ignoring while we're all distracted by its nostalgic glow-ups. But don't worry: in 2075, they'll publish a retrospective on how they finally accepted that climate change is real, and we'll all clap politely.