NY Times Clutches Pearls Over Body Hair

I've read about the fact that Mo'Nique's doesn't shave her legs on a lot of blogs. The first time I read about it was a while ago. It was definitely pre-Precious because when her leg hair was being talked about in an awards show context I was already aware of the fact. The New York Times, perennially behind the times, just decided to tackle the issue of body hair on the red carpet yesterday. It's a silly piece with a gossip blog tone.

The part that bothered me most:

...Mo’Nique...lifted her floor-length dress to reveal her unshaved calves, abundant in their hairiness. This did not go over well. The New York Daily News crowned her “the least superficial actress ever.” On Web sites like TMZ.com, people posted comments like “I have to HURL now ... Disgusting is an understatement.” It would seem that a collective ewww rang out nationwide, one designed to make every ’tween girl snap to attention and realize that leg hair is not allowed.

I don't understand how being called 'the least superficial actress ever' consisitutes not going over well. Does the NYT value superficiality so much that pointing out ones lack of superficiality is an insult? Also why are comments from TMZ being used as a source? What's next, quoting bigots on YouTube in an article about race relations?

If this is an attempt from the NYT to be snarky and relevant it's worrying.

Via Roger Ebert's twitter.