They're a newspaper, not a scientific journal. They commissioned a piece from an academic working with the subject. That's already a step above most newspapers who'd just have a journalist write something themselves.
What's your point? Newspapers shouldn't treat the subjects they cover critically? They shouldn't contextualize statements to help readers distinguish truth from fiction?
They are critical and contexualizing when it comes to certain topics. Why not when it comes to "data" driven observations?
My point is that they should not need to treat it with the care of a scientific journal, and that commissioning an academic known to write on the subject already means NY Times is exceeding the standards of most newspapers in this respect.
