A snippet:
"Is there truly any less foolproof way to sell the Sunday issue that to get huge viral buzz from a damsel in distress story played out in that most modern of locales, the blogsphere?
Call it cynical on my part, but I can just see current NYTMag editor Adam Moss looking back over the upper-middle class waif stories (and media sensations) of Joyce Maynard and later Elizabeth Wurtzel and wondering if Emily Gould's sob story of error and reform would generate the same page views and buzz those two highly manufactured heroines achieved.
While much of the media criticism and the consumer comments have focused on Gould's narcissism and opportunistic use of her beauty, sexuality and position, and the aggressive marketing of her subsequent prettily teared up regret, no one has talked much about the cold-blooded cynicism of the Times in assigning and publishing what is just the latest incarnation in an ongoing series of sensational stories by attractive young women who struggle."
I think you'll find that the NYT didn't search out Emily to assign her this piece. She'd been looking for sell a rebuttal to Stein's Page 6 Magazine piece for a while. While, indeed, she may be narcissistic isn't she allowed to market and profit from her writing? She's in control of her sexuality and her smarts, so why not?
And Adam Moss hasn't been editor of the NYT magazine since 2004. He's editor of New York magazine--that's the link (I see in your column, you corrected the name, but not the link.
Maynard's revelations about Salinger appeared in Vanity Fair, not the NYT magazine.