So, a bunch of people already replied to note your proposal is non-standard, and the NYT is reporting this correctly, but I'd like to reply to ask: Why were you

So, a bunch of people already replied to note your proposal is non-standard, and the NYT is reporting this correctly, but I'd like to reply to ask: Why were you confident enough that you were right and they were wrong to actually have to add the dunk at the end of your post? Like, it wasn't enough to say "It seems like we should care more about per capita deaths" -- reasonable enough, you could imagine considering the impact of an event in either manner -- but you had to declare your way was obviously right, and then insinuate Of Course The Failing New York Times Blew It Again. I've noticed this quite often here over the last year; not just someone replying to or critiquing a journalist's defensible choice, but then immediately jumping to indicting the practice of journalism or their outlet. It's already an overreaction when the criticism is true, but it's especially an overreaction when the criticism ends up more wrong than the position being criticized.