The New York Times article written by Ms. Nir which exposed nail salons received credit and acknowledgement far and wide. However, an article written by a former NYT journalist calls into question if this article was as informative as it was made out to be.

Reading through the rebuttal of the NYT nail salon expose, one can understand the clear omissions made in the original article. Ms. Nir, the journalist who wrote the piece on the nail salons made an overarching conclusion about nail salons in NYC and their abuses of illegal immigrants and the exploitation that these immigrants face. She starts by pointing out that the wages posted in ads that specifically target Chinese people listed a base pay of $10/day which was confirmed by the workers at that specific salon.

What she failed to mention there was that the $10/day pay was for apprentices, not for those performing medium or big jobs. Those people were typically paid upwards of $70/day plus tips and commission.

Another issue with Ms. Nir’s article that Mr. Bernstein, author of the first rebuttal pointed out was that Ms. Nir’s article mainly follows one woman and uses her story as the basis of the truth for every nail salon and immigrant worker and nail salon workers in NYC in general. Mr. Bernstein points out that there are a number of licensed nail salon workers and nail salons themselves that Ms. Nir did not take into account and whose opinions she did not have regard for.

In the rebuttal to Mr. Bernstein, Mr. Luo does point out that Mr. Bernstein was referencing a different source, the Department of State Inspections where as Ms. Nir was originally referring to the Department of Labor. This distinction is quite important and was useful that Mr. Luo pointed it out because each reference tells a different story.

Was it fair for the NYT article to have been criticized for the way it handled its coverage? Yes. It is important to point out serious flaws in journalism and that includes only getting one side of a story which Ms. Nir did by mainly following the story of one immigrant worker and using it as the basis for all nail workers in NYC. It is also important to note distinctions such as $10/day for an apprentice versus $10/day for nail salon workers. Though the wages are unacceptable for anyone, the distinction needs to be made, nevertheless.

I think the best way the Times could have avoided being criticized was to be specific with who was receiving what wages and to also diversify the nail salon workers she spoke to. By doing these things the major points of criticism are null.