As we watch the newspaper industry crater, devouring itself from within, it might be prudent to reflect on why we read newspapers in the first place. Do we do it to stay informed on the daily happenings both locally and nationally, or to be entertained by the amazing stories of a world more fascinating day by day? To find the latest business happenings and sports scores? To be more involved in the world of music, movies, and culture?

Note that, among the reasons above, never did I mention, “To get our faces slapped by a giant elitist widget.” Of course, sometimes newspapers forget this key fact.

On Friday, February 6th, the New York Times ran a story titled, “You Try to Live on 500K in This Town,” detailing the costs of living for Manhattan socialite bankers who may be affected by President Obama’s obviously shameful attempt to limit their pay to a mere half a million dollars a year. The story, written by Allen Salkin, serves as a rough overview of what it takes to be one of these masters of the universe, and how it is practically impossible for them to give up their hard-earned lifestyle, just because they drove their companies – and the economy as a whole – directly into the ground. And then repeatedly jumped up and down on top of them.

For the past two days at least, the article has been on top of the NYT list of “Most Popular Emailed” stories. Now, the pertinent question is, who exactly is this article aimed at? I suppose a few readers went through the numbers and thought, “My goodness gracious, our friends are suffering so! I’m all a-flutter. Hand me the caviar. There’s a dear.”

Most readers, however, aren’t forwarding this story onto their friends and colleagues because they think it’s a serious piece of journalism worth their time and introspection. They are forwarding this story on because it’s a really bad joke, and a giant slap across the face of all Americans who have ever struggled to make ends meet, and the New York Times should be ashamed for even printing it.

The main point of the article, it seems, is this: “More than a few of the New York-based financial executives who would have their pay limited are men (and they are almost invariably men) whose identities are entwined with living a certain way in a certain neighborhood west of Third Avenue: a life of private schools, summer houses and charity galas that only a seven-figure income can stretch to cover.”

And how can they give that all up? They need it, you hear. And they won’t hear another word on the subject.

Mr. Salkin lists a variety of expenses that these men clearly must continue to endure: $32K a year, per child for private school. $45,000 a year for a nanny. $1.5 million for a three-bedroom apartment, which a real estate broker bemoans, is “not the top of the market at all.” Oh, the humanity. Two vacations a year, a winter trip to somewhere warm and toasty and a spring trip for that oh-so-populist sport, skiing, totaling only $16K a year. A measly $240K a year for mortgage for a summer house. At least $75K a year for a driver, and more for an armed one. At least $35K for dresses to attend charity balls, and another $12K for a personal trainer so those dresses fit.

And it continues. Tutoring, dry cleaning, restaurants, groceries… Wait a second, he mentioned groceries? Maybe these bankers can cut down on their grocery bills. That’d make a difference, right?

But before passing judgment, let’s hear from the affected:

“As hard as it is to believe, bankers who are living on the Upper East Side making $2 or $3 million a year have set up a life for themselves in which they are also at zero at the end of the year with credit cards and mortgage bills that are inescapable,” said Holly Peterson, the author of an Upper East Side novel of manners, “The Manny,” and the daughter of Peter G. Peterson, a founder of the equity firm the Blackstone Group.

Now, mind you, I don’t know Ms. Petersen, but as “the author of an Upper East Side novel of manners” and the scion of a major financial player, is her point of view slightly skewed maybe? Has Ms. Petersen ever gone to public school or gotten a MetroCard, as the article suggests later? Yes, these expenses are necessary all right.

Is the NYT hoping to give us some fascinating insight into the lives of the rich and prosperous? No, thanks, I already have Gossip Girl.

Is the NYT trying to shed some light onto the social mores of a world far from our own? Uh, those social mores are what got us into this mess in the first place.

Is the NYT just being lazy and producing turgid, down-market, half-assed content to boost their hits and get crazed writers to produce angry blog postings on? Bingo.

Mr. Salkin, to his credit, does admit pretty much doing exactly that, half way through his story, when he says, this isn’t for sympathy, but for sport. But that’s not right. Sport would be throwing all these bankers in the Coliseum with a bunch of ravenous lions. This is just play-time.