NEW YORK, NY Jan. 16 (DPI) – A group of elderly Korean-American men hang out in a Flushing, Queens, McDonald’s for hours on end, spurring tensions with the restaurant’s employees.
Loitering of course is a common problem for many urban and suburban fast-food eateries, and this week The New York Times reported on it. The story struck a powerful nerve as hundreds of readers opined on the matter and the story was re-posted on Slate, DailyMail and elsewhere.
But most remarkably, the article and the comments accompanying it laid bare an old divide between journalists and their readers: The citizenry is overwhelmingly rule-respecting and common-sense, all reflected in a cascade of comments critical of the elderly men, who by all accounts have other hang-out options in their Flushing neighborhood, including a senior center.
And it re-confirms that readers are generally much more conservative than reporters and editors of the mainstream media.
The article reflected the non-judgmental, relativist, anthropology-class tone fancied by NYT Times staffers – and urban journalists generally. Even the NYT’s headline suggested the elderly interlopers somehow were entitled to encamp in a private establishment: “Fighting a McDonald’s in Queens for the Right to Sit. And Sit. And Sit.” The article further pointed out the elderly men may feel “marginalized” if they had to spend time in a nearby senior center rather than in a private restaurant.
But popular reader comments pounced on the idea that McDonald’s was somehow a villain in this tale – or that the men had a righteous leg to stand on. Most-recommended reader comments sensibly asserted that the elderly men, who purchase little and sit in the restaurant for hours, were clearly abusing the privilege offered to McDonald’s billions and billions of customers:
(Highest recommended, 552 Recs) Personally, I think these “customers” are being rather rude and inconsiderate. Passing by numerous community centers and other such facilities to buy a $1.39 bag of fries and a coffee to munch on for hours at a McD’s, which relies on a fast turnover of tables for its business model to work? I think they ought to pack up and move out.
(Second Highest Recommended) it really is not nice of the elderly patrons to sit there all day. I bought a meal there and wanted to sit down and ended up standing over a garbage pale eating my meal b/c these non paying customers were hogging up the tables. Not nice. They should congregate at one of their own homes or change venues every day.
(Third Highest Recommended) These folks are being disrespectful of other patrons of the restaurant. They’re basically asking a business to provide them free space — rent ain’t cheap. If they’re at the point of turning away paying patrons and having to give refunds, that’s pretty egregious behaviour. Imagine if this was a bunch of teenagers refusing to leave and costing the place business — I guarantee you people would be outraged and side with the McDonald’s.
If these seniors would like to pay for the cost of the seats they’re using for hours at a time, fine. Otherwise, they need to finish their 20-minute-coffee and go to the senior’s centre that’s right down the street.
(Others) This is no different than the people who hog the tables at the Barnes and Noble Cafe, Panera’s or Starbucks for hours while using their wi-fi and leaving no room for paying customers.
A small number of the nearly 600 posts on NYTimes.com tried to paint Mickey D’s as the bad guy, either because it 1) pays wages that are too low 2) serves food that’s not particularly good for you 3) is a large corporation 4) is mean to the elderly loiterers when employees call the police in an effort to remove them.
Farther away from The Times site, the tone was entirely unsympathetic of the interlopers:
(1500 Upvotes on DailyMail.co.uk) So these seniors don’t want to meet at the senior center or one of their own homes? Can’t blame McDonald’s for wanting to move them along. They’re in the business of making money, not being a local hangout. You know teens wouldn’t be allowed to do, so neither should these geezers.