Editor’s note: Jodie T. Allen, former managing and business editor at USNews and Washington editor of Slate magazine, worked at the Washington Post for many years, including as the editor of the Outlook section. She began her career at the Post as a writer on the editorial page.

It is rare that I wish I were back on the dim corridor where I, and a small band of similarly ink-stained wretches, slaved to churn out yet another offering for the morning edition of our newspaper. But when I got wind of the news that the popular American Girls brand had deployed "Gwen," a new doll who purports to be homeless, the old fighting spirit returned.

The debut of little Gwen is precisely the sort of happening that evokes a sigh of editorialist relief at the start of an otherwise daunting day. To begin with, there is in this case no need to do a hasty search for all the relevant background material. One wouldn’t even need to round up the usual sources for comment. Gwen’s story, as described by her maker, is simple. "Like the Chrissa® doll, Gwen arrives in an outfit that’s perfect for playtime: A white eyelet lace dress with embroidered accents; A pink headband that doubles as a belt; Pink underwear; Braided sandals to match."

Hmm, I don’t think I’ve seen many homeless people in white eyelet lace with pink headbands, let alone rosy underwear and matching sandals. That ought to be good for a snide aside or two.

In addition to a "soft cloth body," Gwen is blessed with brown eyes and long, blond hair. Is that supposed to denote that she is multicultural? And where are the required accessories? The purloined supermarket basket filled with moth-eaten blankets and rat-munched clothing? The grating to sleep on and the trash can in which to forage?

But enough irony. At bottom this is a clear instance of something that gladdens the heart of every editorial writer: another outrage! And, what’s more, one that offers ample opportunity for fulmination without the secret worry that one’s cry for reform will go unheeded (as do most editorial page injunctions) and that true harm or suffering will go unredressed. For what could be more appalling than the notion that a well-heeled company is reaping in profits, at the rate of $95 a pop – far beyond the reach of most parents, let alone those who are on the streets – for peddling a product that capitalizes on (never mind trivializes) genuine human suffering. Well I could go on and on, but I think I’ve already got enough words to fill up that space in the left-hand column …

Jodie T. Allen