One example mentioned recently by a reader: As cited in an Adam Liptak article on the Supreme Court, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had “misunderstood” a financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife’s earnings from the Heritage Foundation. The reader thought it not likely that Mr. Thomas “misunderstood,” and instead that he simply chose not to report the information.
Plenty has been said about this rare glimpse into the [insert richly derisive adjective] minds of The Times. What no one seems to have gotten around to pointing out is that the column is exasperatingly short on links. Say, hypothetically, that I wanted to read the whole Adam Liptak story for myself. However would I find it? A search of The Times archive for "liptak misunderstood thomas heritage" turns up just one result -- this column. Pull "liptak" from the search and I do come up with a story from last January by one Eric Lichtblau, in which they do cite a critic declaring Thomas' explanation "implausible."
There's plenty more to say, I'm sure.