An article in the sports section of the Times is a great illustration of the way reporters describe reality in whatever way they want to spin it. The issue is Greenwich, Connecticut. A 2009 Times article described it as "the ritzy suburb and haven for New York City's elite." A 1997 Times article reported "This affluent town, where backyards are as big as Rhode Island and more than a few people take pride in talking like George Plimpton, is committed to maintaining its image as a sanctuary for those with wealth and taste."
Today's sports article takes a different approach; an injured boxer is described as living "in a small bedroom in a working-class neighborhood in Greenwich, in a modest house his family rents cheap from a devoted friend."
"Ritzy" and "affluent"? Or "working-class"? It's the same town, it just depends on what the reporter is trying to get the readers to think. If "working-class" neighborhoods and "modest" rental houses indeed exist in Greenwich, maybe the Times should think again the next time it is tempted to paint the whole town with the "ritzy" and "affluent" brush?