The New York Times was not fairly criticized by Richard Bernstein about their nail salon exposé because his allegations are filled with errors. Most of his criticism is based off of the classified ads. He makes a claim that all the ads published after the story was released do not state anything close to a salary of $10/a day, but instead lists base pay anywhere from $70-$120 a day. A twitter photo shows that this is not true. An ad translated from a Chinese newspaper said an apprentice would make $10 a day working at a nail salon. The salons could have also raised their salary after they were exposed to make themselves look better. Bernstein claims that the Times did not use reliable sources, which is not true because they interviewed over 150 people. Most of the story was also based off of claims made by Jing Ren, an employee at a nail salon in Long Island.

The Times were able to expose nail salons whose employees worked for less than minimum wage, worked too many hours in one week, and were physically abused by the owners. The Times related the labor violations inside the workplace to Ms. Ren’s outside life.  After Ms. Ren worked a tiring shift, she would come home to a one bedroom apartment crammed with 5 other people, three of whom were strangers. Her apartment, photographed in the article, is tiny. The only thing separating each other’s sleeping quarters are curtains. Her house is also infected with cockroaches. The photograph helps verify the accuracy of her story because it shows the poor conditions Ms. Ren must live in. It also means Sarah Maslin Nir, the author of the article, spent time with Ms. Ren and did not base her allegations off of a quick question and answer session.

In order to not be criticized, the Times could have taken a picture of a classified ad that showed pay as $10 a day. It could have been similar to the one used by Michael Luo in the critique of Bernstein’s critique. I do not think the Times had to change anything else.