It's not up to me to ask the New York Daily News, and other publications for that matter, why they have women writing about the dresses and the clothing worn by famous women.
As you guys can tell, this writer makes a big deal about the open back, which is of minimal significance to us:
I would have reviewed this dress much differently. I don't really care about what her spine and her back have coming out. My reaction is that the sides don't go out far enough toward the shoulder, which means that guys have no opportunity to see down from behind her shoulder and see any boobage. The lowest point is still well above the top of her butt crack, and it appears there is a big enough margin even when she sits down.
The front of the dress is thin enough that we can tell it has a thick built-in bra, so we won't even get any nipple prints.
Even if one of these steps were taken (the lack of a bra or wider at the upper back), we would have a more attractive dress.
Furthermore, she should have worn her hair down. It would have been much sexier to have her long hair dangling over the bare back.
Those are the reasons not to "replicate" this dress, rather than those the writer points out. I'm no fashion expert, but at least I can cater to what guys like. And that's who should be looking and reviewing!