At first glance I thought this must be satire of some kind but it’s real. Twitter user T. Greer was in the DC metro and noticed the ad on a screen next to him. He took a series of pictures asking people to guess what the ad was for.
— T. Greer (@Scholars_Stage) February 17, 2022
The reveal: pic.twitter.com/kI9hW0JSJi
— T. Greer (@Scholars_Stage) February 17, 2022
My first impression was a lot like this one.
How can an advertisement for a newspaper be conceived around the act of trolling a private individual? What is the advertising company behind this campaign?
— Thomas Chatterton Williams (@thomaschattwill) February 18, 2022
Looking more closely, it turns out Lianna is a real person, one of several real subscribers that the Times asked to create promotional videos based on things they’ve been reading at the times. You can see all of the different people who are part of this effort here. And here’s Lianna’s personal video listing the things she is reading.
The line about imagining Harry Potter without it’s creator is a reference to this article from June 2020: “Harry Potter Fans Reimagine Their World Without Its Creator”
They listen to chapter-by-chapter podcasts, get tattoos with the Hogwarts crest or Deathly Hallows symbol, and attend Potter conferences like LeakyCon, which draws thousands of fans every year. Some have even built their careers on it.
Over the past week, some fans said that they had decided to simply walk away from the world that spans seven books, eight movies and an ever-expanding franchise. Others said that they were trying to separate the artist from the art, to remain in the fandom while denouncing someone who was once considered to be royalty.
“J.K. Rowling gave us Harry Potter; she gave us this world,” said Renae McBrian, a young adult author who volunteers for the fan site MuggleNet. “But we created the fandom, and we created the magic and community in that fandom. That is ours to keep.”
But of course there’s another level to this. Someone from the Times marketing department decided this particular line about this particular article would sell subscriptions. Stripped of the broader context (a subscriber reading a lot of different things) this looks like an embrace of cancel culture. In fact, this is the sort of thing some writers have referred to as “toxic fandom,” only because the people behind it are on the left they never get labeled toxic by anyone in the media.
Surely the ad writers know that a group of very online trans “activists” aren’t content to be fans while quietly erasing JK Rowling from memory. For many activists, the goal is to cancel her publicly and painfully if possible. In some cases that effort has crossed a line into something more dangerous. Just last November, Rowling said she’d been doxed by three trans activists who posed for a photo in front of her house.
Last Friday, my family’s address was posted on Twitter by three activist actors who took pictures of themselves in front of our house, carefully positioning themselves to ensure that our address was visible. 1/8
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) November 22, 2021
Her thread concluded by referencing the volume of death threats she’d personally received.
I’ve now received so many death threats I could paper the house with them, and I haven’t stopped speaking out. Perhaps – and I’m just throwing this out there – the best way to prove your movement isn’t a threat to women, is to stop stalking, harassing and threatening us. 8/X
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) November 22, 2021
Granted not everyone who is upset with Rowling is sending death threats but the Times must be aware this view is associated with an extended campaign full of vitriol and name calling (TERF wars). And the name calling has a clear goal which is to punish and deplatform anyone with the wrong opinions.
Here’s what a Times spokesperson told the Guardian about the ad:
Amy Weisenbach, senior vice president and head of marketing at The New York Times Company, said the campaign highlights how there are “several ways our readers connect with and engage with our journalism to inform their lives”.
Again, the concept of the ad seems fine but Lianna listed a bunch of articles and the Times decided to highlight this particular one as a message to potential subscribers. (The other one they highlighted about a “harmony of flavors” was a 1980 article about a book on various world cuisines. Not exactly a hot button piece in 2022.) I think the message being sent by the Times is pretty clear: If you hate JK Rowling you’ll love the NY Times.
So far, Rowling hasn’t responded but I’ve seen people tagging her so maybe she will.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member