I do believe The New York Times was fairly criticized for several reasons. As stated, investigative reporting is used to inform readers and raise awareness about issues that are not visible on the surface, and are often based upon one source. Which in this situation the one source happens to be Sarah Maslin Nir.

Nir makes it clear that one employee was not paid for three months, and that often many are not compensated for overtime, or paid as low as $10/hour. As stated in “What the ‘Times’ Got Wrong About Nail Salons” it is hard to believe that any employee would settle for “one-seventh or one-eleventh of that amount” for three months, if it is clear that some salons pay from $70-110.

“Rebuttal to the Nails Rebuttal,” provides further details about the positions in nail salons, specifically the small, middle, and big jobs. Nir fails to inform the reader of this information, or may not have been aware herself. Michael Luo continues, “The ad also doesn’t specify per hour or per day. The reporter confirmed that it was referring to per day.”

Lastly, Nir states that in 2012 there were over 2,000 nail salons, however in her reporting she states that only 29 salons were investigated. This leaves questions about the accuracy of the reporting as well as the time period covering the investigation.

Although she was heavily criticized and questioned about the accuracy of her information, essentially Nir completed her objective, which was to spark conversation about nail salon employees, their wages, and work conditions.