The New York Times’ public editor conceded Friday that its series on New York City’s nail salons contained several reporting errors, an admission that comes after the libertarian magazine Reason led the charge to correct the newspaper’s coverage.
“The series … had admirable intentions in speaking for underpaid or abused workers. And the investigation did reveal some practices in need of reform. But, in places, the two-part investigation went too far in generalizing about an entire industry,” Margaret Sullivan wrote Friday. “Its findings, and the language used to express them, should have been dialed back — in some instances substantially.”
Reason did most of the heavy lifting in uncovering the series’ errors, and the Times’ editors are aware of the questions raised by the magazine’s reporting.
However, Sullivan admitted Friday, the Times chose until this week to ignore the magazine’s objections because of its libertarian bias.
“Until now, The Times has not responded to [Reason’s] series because editors believe they defended the nail salon investigation fully when they responded to Mr. Bernstein’s complaints, and because they think the magazine, which generally opposes regulation, is reporting from a biased point of view,” she wrote.
This line of reasoning left some in media unimpressed.
“So the magazine that questions your reporting has a POV? Not a good reason to ignore it,” Jay Rosen, a media critic and a professor of journalism at New York University, said on social media Friday. “Discounting the criticism because it came with a point of view is a mistake. Just as likely to see something you missed.”
In a series that ran in print on May 10-11, Times reporter Sarah Maslin Nir alleged that the salon industry in New York City, which is dominated mostly by Koreans and Chinese immigrants, exploits its workers by paying nail manicurists near-slave wages.
Along with pitiful compensation, workers also have to cope low health standards, as they spend most of their days inhaling toxic fumes that cause miscarriages and cancer, Nir wrote.
The series was hailed for revealing the supposed exploitation of workers at the hands of affluent Manhattans. But Nir’s work did much more than attract clicks and praise: It prompted New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to crack down on an industry that has been the primary source of income for hundred of immigrants.
A few reporters pushed back on the Times’ narrative, explaining in great detail that the series contained multiple errors. Of those who objected to the Times’ reporting, none have been as persistent as Reason’s Jim Epstein, who wrote a three-part series dismantling the story.
Epstein found over the course of his investigation that the Times’ salon series contained several flaws, including mistranslations and sourcing errors.
Nir claimed that she found several Chinese-language ads promising workers a starting wage of $10 a day. The Times reporter added that she found several workers who confirmed the advertisement.
The New York Review of Books’ Richard Bernstein, himself a former Times reporter, was first to dispute these figures, suggesting in July that they simply were not accurate.
“Consider one of the article’s primary pieces of evidence of ‘rampant exploitation’: in a linchpin paragraph near the beginning of the article, the Times asserts that ‘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,'” he wrote, quoting the Times.
Bernstein, who has been a part-owner of two day-spas in Manhattan for the last 12 years, continued, “The single example mentioned is an ad by a salon on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, which, according to the Times, was published in Sing Tao Daily and World Journal, the two big Chinese-language papers in New York, and listed salaries of $10 a day.”
He also questioned Nir’s claim that she found several works to confirm these numbers.
“[I]t seems strange, or it should have seemed strange to the paper’s editors, that the sole example the reporter provides of the sort of ad that the Asian-language papers are ‘rife with’ is one that is not even quoted from and for which no date is provided,” he wrote. “Indeed, it’s not clear whether the reporter saw the ad at all — otherwise why the caveat ‘The rate was confirmed by several workers’?”
“Curiously, while Ms. Nir appears to have visited the salon in question, the story doesn’t say whether the owner of the salon confirmed or denied placing such an ad — or whether that question was even asked,” he added as an aside.
In response to these questions, the Times editors produced a letter that included a few more examples of the types of Chinese-language ads Nir claimed were “rife” in local newspapers.
Epstein examined the provided examples and found that Times was way off the mark.
“The ads don’t say what the Times editors claim they do. Two of the ads they cite actually say that a mani/pedi costs $40 at the salon, not that a worker would be paid $40. Why include such a detail in a job ad? It implies big tips,” he wrote. “The first one translates as: ‘UV gel, big jobs, experienced small jobs, and cosmeticians. Flushing pickup and drop-off. Mani/Pedi $40 with commission, good percentage tips, may file taxes.'”
“The second one reads: ‘Seeking UV gel experienced big jobs, small jobs, and cosmeticians. Pickup and drop-off at Flushing, Mani/Pedi $40 or more, expensive jobs,'” he added.
Epstein even tracked down the storeowner who posted the ads and confirmed the accuracy of the numbers.
“The third ad the Times editors produced in response to Bernstein offers a wage of ‘$40-90,'” he reported. “I interviewed the salon owner who posted that ad, David Lee. His shop went out of business in 2014, in part, he says, because he struggled to attract enough qualified manicurists. Lee says he was offering full-time workers a base salary of $90 per day and part-time workers $40 per day.”
Sullivan suggested Friday that the newspaper’s version of what ads said is perhaps more nuanced than what Epstein’s reporting suggested.
“One can argue about the wording of individual ads and what they meant,” she wrote. “It seems to me, though, that at the very least, too much credence was given to them, both in describing papers as ‘rife’ with them and in interpreting what they said.”
She did acknowledge that Bernstein and Epstein raised good points about the series. However, incorrect translations and sourcing problems aside, she added, the newspaper’s coverage is still solid and it performs an important service.
“There is a legitimate and important subject here about low-paid work done by immigrants in New York City — not just in nail salons. It includes, for example, the food-delivery business and many other services that affluent New Yorkers take for granted,” she wrote. “I’m always glad to see The Times take on situations in which the poor and voiceless are exploited. But, in doing so, it must protect its reputation for accuracy and rigor above all.”
“My recommendation is that The Times write further follow-up stories, including some that re-examine its original findings and that take on the criticism from salon owners and others — not defensively but with an open mind,” she added.
