> The larger point, to my reading, is how NYT has published ahistorical, ideology first products and presented and pushed them as history[...] That reads like

> The larger point, to my reading, is how NYT has published ahistorical, ideology first products and presented and pushed them as history[...] That reads like a misrepresentation of TFA: the author conceded that the historical facts reported by the NYT are accurate, but they disagree with the tone and conclusion. The author's angle is a weird one: author thinks that the article(s) should be read as an academic paper (no reason given), and then lobs criticism at it for not being a good academic paper.