Nailed? Jim Epstein At Reason: ‘The New York Times’ Nail Salons Series Was Filled with Misquotes and Factual Errors. Here’s Why That Matters.’

Full piece here.

A very thorough fisking of some apparently very shoddy reporting showcased by the NY Times, and a very good read.  Parts II and III to come.

Hopefully the Times and the reporter in question get a chance to respond, perhaps in an open forum?

Apparently, many nail-salons have been offering the equivalent of unpaid internships for people to gain skills, which, you know, large newspapers are known to do (the Times pays apparently slightly more per week than some of the salons reported on in the article).


‘The “great lesson” here is actually something different. I’ve spent the last several weeks re-reporting aspects of Nir’s story and interviewing her sources. Not only did Nir’s coverage broadly mischaracterize the nail salon industry, several of the men and women she spoke with say she misquoted or misrepresented them. In some cases, she interviewed sources without translators despite their poor English skills. When her sources’ testimonies ran counter to her narrative, she omitted them altogether.’

This might remind of the discredited Rolling Stone story on the UVA case involving ‘Jackie.’

Some people’s ideology can lead them a kind of limitless outrage, to justify all manner of intrusion into the lives of others, often with righteous passion, bad statistics, and a ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ attitude.

It’s been a bit of a sad parade these last few years:


Leave a Reply