8 ms·

What the NYT Got Wrong About Nail Salons

97 points by mr_golyadkin 11y ago

brownbat 11y ago
Wow, damning takedown (from a former NYT journalist who happens to really know the industry). There is one odd line, "Needless to say, it is not like The New York Times to get things so demonstrably wrong," It's just odd because Bernstein effectively makes Erika Allen seem like this decade's Jayson Blair. Makes the reader wonder if the NYT is a pressure cooker for this sort of fabulist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair
- foobarian 11y ago
  This is now a second former NYT journalist that is also concerned about NYT's fact checking. Wonder if they were replaced by journalists with similar ethical standards.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- aaronkrolik 11y ago
  heres the ad in question: https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 the author of this post never interviewed the NYT reporter. or her editor
  - KaoruAoiShiho 11y ago
    What am I looking at? It clearly says $75 right there not $10.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      On the reporter's twitter, it is claimed that the ad says $75/day for a worker with experience, and $10 for one without. However, you'd have to take their word for it, because despite saying very aggrieved things about how the ad Bernstein doubted DOES REALLY EXIST, and HERE'S A PICTURE OF IT... nobody has posted a picture with legible text. I find it personally disturbing that so many people want to view that image as evidence of anything at all. :/ The character 學 ("study") is visible before an occurrence of $10 in the text, so it's reasonably likely that they're telling the truth about what it says. It's left as an exercise to say why paying your untrained interns $10 / day is so much worse for them than the conventional US practice of paying them nothing.
      - Retra 11y ago
        Unpaid internships in the US are mostly illegal except under some fairly contrived circumstances.
        GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
        They're also all over the place in SV.
- brownbat 11y ago
  Correction: Sorry, Sarah Nir is the journalist, not Allen. The one ad is now being used to confirm: "Asian-language newspapers are rife with classified ads listing manicurist jobs paying so little the daily wage can at first glance appear to be a typo." The existence of one ad shows that Bernstein wasn't thorough in his search. But the image does not show that papers are rife with such ads. Either way, though, Nir is writing about vulnerable undocumented immigrants, and Bernstein's describing how the industry works for people who play by the rules and only hire licensed workers. Since they're talking about different parts of the industry, everything both side argues could be true. I'm reading the twitter exchange, it sounds like they're just shouting past each other.
Retric 11y ago
70$ per day is actually listed in the add assuming an 8 hour day that is 8.25 / hour in NYC. Assuming you could actually make minimum wage in most of the country you would be far better off. Which actually supports the idea that wage theft is rampant in the industry. Further, like many cash businesses it's likely to attract many illegals which are generally highered at risk. For an industry already stuck at minimum wage across most of the country the only way that risk is worth it is if there making less than that. PS: the other reason to use illegals is if the supply of workers is limited, but that would tend to push wages well above minimum wage. if the rules where actually inforced many nail bars would likely close, until reduced supply drove up either prices or utilization to support higher worker pay.
- cma 11y ago
  For tipped workers I thought minimum wage (at the time of the article) ranged from $4.90 to $5.65 in New York. The original Times author (if i remember right) claimed rampant tip-withholding, but you are claiming the ad itself demonstrates wage theft, and it doesn't mention tip withholding. The author points out the part about illegals, and claimed that at key parts where it talked about workers as a whole, it drew from a sample of only unlicensed workers, which likely includes a larger proportion of illegals. He said the Times should have tried to estimate the size of this pool amongst the total work force.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Tips may count as part of pay, but they can't lower net hourly wages below minimum wages when including tips. As the quoted rates are minimum after tips the salon that's already factored into the calculation to reach 70$/Day. PS: If you actually look at the picture you see two customers receiving work (back rub and nails) from multiple workers at the same time. Which means tips are going to be shared and likely to make up some of that 70$ minimum. Sure on a good day tip shares likely bump things past 70$ but per day each worker must always end up over 7.25 including tips.
    - cma 11y ago
forrestthewoods 11y ago
Damning if true. I hope the NYTimes responds this time around. I bet if the NYTimes issues a retraction the mayor issued license requirement won't be lifted.
- aaronkrolik 11y ago
  It's not true. https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/q-and-a-luo-yufeng-a-k-a-sister-feng-on-life-as-a-manicurist-in-new-york/?_r=0 http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/q-and-a-luo-y... http://fusion.net/story/132309/nail-salon-expose-my-manicurist-hadnt-heard-about-it-and-yours-probably-wont-either/#.lwnxkt:EOto http://fusion.net/story/132309/nail-salon-expose-my-manicuri...
ageek123 11y ago
The NY Times seems to have a serious ongoing credibility problem. Just a couple of days ago they seriously mis-reported the investigation into the Clinton emails[1], and a couple of weeks ago they all but admitted that their Ellen Pao coverage was ideologically biased[2]. And that's just in the past couple of weeks! [1] http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246 http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-email... [2] http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/sunday-review/did-reddit-boss-coverage-cross-a-line-ellen-pao.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/sunday-review/did-reddi...
- steve19 11y ago
  There needs to be an internet "law" about how all news reporting websites eventually tend towards populism and "fluff" (Ten X About Y That Will Shock|Terrify|Amaze You), rather than unbiased reporting, over time. Edit: And maybe another law about how frequently they tend toward populism that ends up alienating the silent-majority of their audience setting up a feedback loop as they strive to even greater monetization despite a decreasing audience.
  - ageek123 11y ago
    The funny/sad thing is that the NY Times basically admitted that's what they've become. In the Ellen Pao "Public Editor" column I linked to, the NY Times Public Editor herself said "I often hear from readers that they would prefer a straight, neutral treatment — just the facts. But The Times has moved away from that, reflecting editors’ reasonable belief that the basics can be found in many news outlets, every minute of the day."
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Sweet zombie jesus. I can't believe they not only outright said that, but apparently think it's somehow a good thing. The only thing the NYT has going for it is reliability. If it's their view that the facts can be had anywhere and what makes them special is the "added value" then they are almost outright admitting that they no longer have any reason to exits.
mc32 11y ago
This is the problem with reporting in general --it's full of half truths and poorly researched pieces. Many of these pieces are political one way or another. They need better editors and fact checkers and other news organs, such as NPR or HuufPo or Fox, etc., which pick up the flame, should not pick up these stories and take them as self evident truths. They should at least do some rudimentary fact-checking if only as rudimentary as ECC. But no, then narratives would die. Either they want to portray the struggle of the meek in the face of the oppressor. Or they want to forward an agenda. It's as if they want to be the hero or heroin. But at the same time they want to be known as having journalistic integrity and it seems this is just a mirage. It's all propaganda. Sometimes I think they just want to provide catharsis for the upper middle class. Oh, we're better than those other middling people, we care. We truly feel sorry and truly want to bring better things to the disadvantaged --but it's all to lessen their own guilt. There is nothing wrong with saying, a few nail salons are found to exploit a few new immigrants... But no, it has to be a widesweeping generalization, demonizing all nail operators --who can't retaliate against the machine that is the nyt. I think someone has brought up the idea of a "genius" for these kinds of hitpieces where people with subject matter knowledge or expertise could comment.
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  There's a famous, and depressing, quote about newspapers by Micheal Crichton that fits here: Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. The full essay appears here: http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/ http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/
  - 11y ago
jeromegv 11y ago
The original NYTimes author disagrees and offers proofs on her Twitter https://twitter.com/SarahMaslinNir https://twitter.com/SarahMaslinNir
- ombudswoman 11y ago
  As does her editor: https://twitter.com/michaelluo https://twitter.com/michaelluo
aaronkrolik 11y ago
The exact ad in question: https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 also should add the author of this nybooks article never interviewed the NYT author. more related work: http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/q-and-a-luo-yufeng-a-k-a-sister-feng-on-life-as-a-manicurist-in-new-york/?_r=0 http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/q-and-a-luo-y... http://fusion.net/story/132309/nail-salon-expose-my-manicurist-hadnt-heard-about-it-and-yours-probably-wont-either/#.lwnxkt:EOto http://fusion.net/story/132309/nail-salon-expose-my-manicuri...
- bpodgursky 11y ago
  It's a very strange dichotomy that $10 for a training or learning position is considered oppressive, but if it was unpaid (internship) or the trainee had to pay tuition for classes, it would be totally a non-issue.
  - sp332 11y ago
    Most kinds of unpaid internships are illegal, and it's become a louder issue in the last year or so. http://www.businessinsider.com/is-my-unpaid-internship-illegal-2013-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/is-my-unpaid-internship-illeg...
  - aaronkrolik 11y ago
    That happens as well: http://m.animalnewyork.com/2015/i-went-undercover-as-a-nail-salon-worker-in-nyc/ http://m.animalnewyork.com/2015/i-went-undercover-as-a-nail-...
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > The exact ad in question: https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 Would it really have killed them to post an image with legible text? How is this supposed to help anyone?
  - sp332 11y ago
klenwell 11y ago
The word "damning" seems a bit strong. "Qualifying" might be better. The author, Richard Bernstein, concludes: in extrapolating from the experience of Ms. Ren to make assertions about that “vast majority,” the paper has put its tremendous prestige and power behind a demonstrably misleading depiction of the nail salon business as a whole. But what's his demonstrable evidence of institutional bias? As the upstanding "part owner of two day-spas in Manhattan", he's never seen anything like the practices described in the article? An equally broad extrapolation. Even his investigation into the phantom $10 / day ad seems a bit disingenuous. He can't find an ad quoting that rate and it does seem odd that a salon would advertise such a low rate when it could just list no rate at all, which Brownstein concedes the majority of ads do. But he seems to misconstrue the article's quote that "the rate was confirmed by several workers" to suggest that the Times' reporter was using the workers to confirm that such ads were all over the place when the reporter intended instead to confirm that this was a common rate in the industry (regardless of the ad). If it turned out the ad couldn't be substantiated, but the practices described in the article were accurate, it'd be worthy of a correction. But not a retraction. What we get with Richard Bernstein's article, one might hazard, is a "demonstrably misleading depiction" of the New York Times article from a motivated industry apologist that plugs its own anecdotes and loose figures into a narrative that seems to have its own populist agenda: the New York Times is not much better than HuffPo or Fox News when it comes to real journalism. Does that mean we should also give up on the New York Review of Books? I hope not.
- jessriedel 11y ago
  > "the rate was confirmed by several workers" to suggest that the Times' reporter was using the workers to confirm that such ads were all over the place when the reporter intended instead to confirm that this was a common rate in the industry (regardless of the ad). Actually, the NY Times isn't quite claiming that. They were just asking around to confirm that this particular ad was correct, and not a typo. > @SarahMaslinNir confirmed w/ workers themselves was to make sure it was not a typo and a real wage. https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625083693363785728 https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625083693363785728 Indeed, from the original article: > Ads in Chinese in both Sing Tao Daily and World Journal for NYC Nail Spa, a second-story salon on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, advertised a starting wage of $10 a day. The rate was confirmed by several workers. I'm pretty sure the Times has no evidence that this is anything like a typical wage.
pcthrowaway 11y ago
> How to account for these evident flaws, the one-sidedness of the Times story? Recently the Times’s own Nick Kristof wrote in a column that “one of our worst traits in journalism is that when we have a narrative in our minds, we often plug in anecdotes that confirm it,” and, he might have added, consciously or not, ignore anecdotes and other information that doesn’t. Was this intentional satire?
aaronchall 11y ago
So it looks like the NYTimes isn't going to win a Pulitzer on this one?

97 points by mr_golyadkin 11y ago

Wow, damning takedown (from a former NYT journalist who happens to really know the industry). There is one odd line, "Needless to say, it is not like The New York Times to get things so demonstrably wrong," It's just odd because Bernstein effectively makes Erika Allen seem like this decade's Jayson Blair. Makes the reader wonder if the NYT is a pressure cooker for this sort of fabulist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

foobarian 11y ago
This is now a second former NYT journalist that is also concerned about NYT's fact checking. Wonder if they were replaced by journalists with similar ethical standards.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
aaronkrolik 11y ago
heres the ad in question: https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 the author of this post never interviewed the NYT reporter. or her editor
- KaoruAoiShiho 11y ago
  What am I looking at? It clearly says $75 right there not $10.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    On the reporter's twitter, it is claimed that the ad says $75/day for a worker with experience, and $10 for one without. However, you'd have to take their word for it, because despite saying very aggrieved things about how the ad Bernstein doubted DOES REALLY EXIST, and HERE'S A PICTURE OF IT... nobody has posted a picture with legible text. I find it personally disturbing that so many people want to view that image as evidence of anything at all. :/ The character 學 ("study") is visible before an occurrence of $10 in the text, so it's reasonably likely that they're telling the truth about what it says. It's left as an exercise to say why paying your untrained interns $10 / day is so much worse for them than the conventional US practice of paying them nothing.
    - Retra 11y ago
      Unpaid internships in the US are mostly illegal except under some fairly contrived circumstances.
      - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
        They're also all over the place in SV.
brownbat 11y ago
Correction: Sorry, Sarah Nir is the journalist, not Allen. The one ad is now being used to confirm: "Asian-language newspapers are rife with classified ads listing manicurist jobs paying so little the daily wage can at first glance appear to be a typo." The existence of one ad shows that Bernstein wasn't thorough in his search. But the image does not show that papers are rife with such ads. Either way, though, Nir is writing about vulnerable undocumented immigrants, and Bernstein's describing how the industry works for people who play by the rules and only hire licensed workers. Since they're talking about different parts of the industry, everything both side argues could be true. I'm reading the twitter exchange, it sounds like they're just shouting past each other.

Retric 11y ago

70$ per day is actually listed in the add assuming an 8 hour day that is 8.25 / hour in NYC. Assuming you could actually make minimum wage in most of the country you would be far better off. Which actually supports the idea that wage theft is rampant in the industry. Further, like many cash businesses it's likely to attract many illegals which are generally highered at risk. For an industry already stuck at minimum wage across most of the country the only way that risk is worth it is if there making less than that. PS: the other reason to use illegals is if the supply of workers is limited, but that would tend to push wages well above minimum wage. if the rules where actually inforced many nail bars would likely close, until reduced supply drove up either prices or utilization to support higher worker pay.

cma 11y ago
For tipped workers I thought minimum wage (at the time of the article) ranged from $4.90 to $5.65 in New York. The original Times author (if i remember right) claimed rampant tip-withholding, but you are claiming the ad itself demonstrates wage theft, and it doesn't mention tip withholding. The author points out the part about illegals, and claimed that at key parts where it talked about workers as a whole, it drew from a sample of only unlicensed workers, which likely includes a larger proportion of illegals. He said the Times should have tried to estimate the size of this pool amongst the total work force.
- Retric 11y ago
  Tips may count as part of pay, but they can't lower net hourly wages below minimum wages when including tips. As the quoted rates are minimum after tips the salon that's already factored into the calculation to reach 70$/Day. PS: If you actually look at the picture you see two customers receiving work (back rub and nails) from multiple workers at the same time. Which means tips are going to be shared and likely to make up some of that 70$ minimum. Sure on a good day tip shares likely bump things past 70$ but per day each worker must always end up over 7.25 including tips.
  - cma 11y ago

forrestthewoods 11y ago

Damning if true. I hope the NYTimes responds this time around. I bet if the NYTimes issues a retraction the mayor issued license requirement won't be lifted.

aaronkrolik 11y ago
It's not true. https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/q-and-a-luo-yufeng-a-k-a-sister-feng-on-life-as-a-manicurist-in-new-york/?_r=0 http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/q-and-a-luo-y... http://fusion.net/story/132309/nail-salon-expose-my-manicurist-hadnt-heard-about-it-and-yours-probably-wont-either/#.lwnxkt:EOto http://fusion.net/story/132309/nail-salon-expose-my-manicuri...

ageek123 11y ago

The NY Times seems to have a serious ongoing credibility problem. Just a couple of days ago they seriously mis-reported the investigation into the Clinton emails[1], and a couple of weeks ago they all but admitted that their Ellen Pao coverage was ideologically biased[2]. And that's just in the past couple of weeks! [1] http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246 http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-email... [2] http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/sunday-review/did-reddit-boss-coverage-cross-a-line-ellen-pao.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/sunday-review/did-reddi...

steve19 11y ago
There needs to be an internet "law" about how all news reporting websites eventually tend towards populism and "fluff" (Ten X About Y That Will Shock|Terrify|Amaze You), rather than unbiased reporting, over time. Edit: And maybe another law about how frequently they tend toward populism that ends up alienating the silent-majority of their audience setting up a feedback loop as they strive to even greater monetization despite a decreasing audience.
- ageek123 11y ago
  The funny/sad thing is that the NY Times basically admitted that's what they've become. In the Ellen Pao "Public Editor" column I linked to, the NY Times Public Editor herself said "I often hear from readers that they would prefer a straight, neutral treatment — just the facts. But The Times has moved away from that, reflecting editors’ reasonable belief that the basics can be found in many news outlets, every minute of the day."
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Sweet zombie jesus. I can't believe they not only outright said that, but apparently think it's somehow a good thing. The only thing the NYT has going for it is reliability. If it's their view that the facts can be had anywhere and what makes them special is the "added value" then they are almost outright admitting that they no longer have any reason to exits.

mc32 11y ago

This is the problem with reporting in general --it's full of half truths and poorly researched pieces. Many of these pieces are political one way or another. They need better editors and fact checkers and other news organs, such as NPR or HuufPo or Fox, etc., which pick up the flame, should not pick up these stories and take them as self evident truths. They should at least do some rudimentary fact-checking if only as rudimentary as ECC. But no, then narratives would die. Either they want to portray the struggle of the meek in the face of the oppressor. Or they want to forward an agenda. It's as if they want to be the hero or heroin. But at the same time they want to be known as having journalistic integrity and it seems this is just a mirage. It's all propaganda. Sometimes I think they just want to provide catharsis for the upper middle class. Oh, we're better than those other middling people, we care. We truly feel sorry and truly want to bring better things to the disadvantaged --but it's all to lessen their own guilt. There is nothing wrong with saying, a few nail salons are found to exploit a few new immigrants... But no, it has to be a widesweeping generalization, demonizing all nail operators --who can't retaliate against the machine that is the nyt. I think someone has brought up the idea of a "genius" for these kinds of hitpieces where people with subject matter knowledge or expertise could comment.

bradleyjg 11y ago
There's a famous, and depressing, quote about newspapers by Micheal Crichton that fits here: Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. The full essay appears here: http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/ http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/
- 11y ago

jeromegv 11y ago

The original NYTimes author disagrees and offers proofs on her Twitter https://twitter.com/SarahMaslinNir https://twitter.com/SarahMaslinNir

ombudswoman 11y ago
As does her editor: https://twitter.com/michaelluo https://twitter.com/michaelluo

aaronkrolik 11y ago

The exact ad in question: https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 also should add the author of this nybooks article never interviewed the NYT author. more related work: http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/q-and-a-luo-yufeng-a-k-a-sister-feng-on-life-as-a-manicurist-in-new-york/?_r=0 http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/q-and-a-luo-y... http://fusion.net/story/132309/nail-salon-expose-my-manicurist-hadnt-heard-about-it-and-yours-probably-wont-either/#.lwnxkt:EOto http://fusion.net/story/132309/nail-salon-expose-my-manicuri...

bpodgursky 11y ago
It's a very strange dichotomy that $10 for a training or learning position is considered oppressive, but if it was unpaid (internship) or the trainee had to pay tuition for classes, it would be totally a non-issue.
- sp332 11y ago
  Most kinds of unpaid internships are illegal, and it's become a louder issue in the last year or so. http://www.businessinsider.com/is-my-unpaid-internship-illegal-2013-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/is-my-unpaid-internship-illeg...
- aaronkrolik 11y ago
  That happens as well: http://m.animalnewyork.com/2015/i-went-undercover-as-a-nail-salon-worker-in-nyc/ http://m.animalnewyork.com/2015/i-went-undercover-as-a-nail-...
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> The exact ad in question: https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625082960547610626 Would it really have killed them to post an image with legible text? How is this supposed to help anyone?
- sp332 11y ago

klenwell 11y ago

The word "damning" seems a bit strong. "Qualifying" might be better. The author, Richard Bernstein, concludes: in extrapolating from the experience of Ms. Ren to make assertions about that “vast majority,” the paper has put its tremendous prestige and power behind a demonstrably misleading depiction of the nail salon business as a whole. But what's his demonstrable evidence of institutional bias? As the upstanding "part owner of two day-spas in Manhattan", he's never seen anything like the practices described in the article? An equally broad extrapolation. Even his investigation into the phantom $10 / day ad seems a bit disingenuous. He can't find an ad quoting that rate and it does seem odd that a salon would advertise such a low rate when it could just list no rate at all, which Brownstein concedes the majority of ads do. But he seems to misconstrue the article's quote that "the rate was confirmed by several workers" to suggest that the Times' reporter was using the workers to confirm that such ads were all over the place when the reporter intended instead to confirm that this was a common rate in the industry (regardless of the ad). If it turned out the ad couldn't be substantiated, but the practices described in the article were accurate, it'd be worthy of a correction. But not a retraction. What we get with Richard Bernstein's article, one might hazard, is a "demonstrably misleading depiction" of the New York Times article from a motivated industry apologist that plugs its own anecdotes and loose figures into a narrative that seems to have its own populist agenda: the New York Times is not much better than HuffPo or Fox News when it comes to real journalism. Does that mean we should also give up on the New York Review of Books? I hope not.

jessriedel 11y ago
> "the rate was confirmed by several workers" to suggest that the Times' reporter was using the workers to confirm that such ads were all over the place when the reporter intended instead to confirm that this was a common rate in the industry (regardless of the ad). Actually, the NY Times isn't quite claiming that. They were just asking around to confirm that this particular ad was correct, and not a typo. > @SarahMaslinNir confirmed w/ workers themselves was to make sure it was not a typo and a real wage. https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625083693363785728 https://twitter.com/michaelluo/status/625083693363785728 Indeed, from the original article: > Ads in Chinese in both Sing Tao Daily and World Journal for NYC Nail Spa, a second-story salon on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, advertised a starting wage of $10 a day. The rate was confirmed by several workers. I'm pretty sure the Times has no evidence that this is anything like a typical wage.

pcthrowaway 11y ago

> How to account for these evident flaws, the one-sidedness of the Times story? Recently the Times’s own Nick Kristof wrote in a column that “one of our worst traits in journalism is that when we have a narrative in our minds, we often plug in anecdotes that confirm it,” and, he might have added, consciously or not, ignore anecdotes and other information that doesn’t. Was this intentional satire?

aaronchall 11y ago

So it looks like the NYTimes isn't going to win a Pulitzer on this one?