While I believe that the Times was criticized for the right reasons (lack of evidence behind their claims, lack of proof behind ads, etc…), Bernstein pushes his claims too much on grounds where he lacks the same credibility. Bernstein claims that the article did not provide enough evidence to prove the validity of the newspaper ad listings showing wages as low as ten dollars. He then proceeds to show how he was unable to find any of these listings in the newspapers he looked into. Despite the lack of solid, clear-cut evidence in the Times article, Bernstein’s claims are based on very limited or inapplicable resources. For example, he attempts to disprove the validity of the article by claiming the inaccuracy of the data Sarah Maslin Nir used by citing reports from the Department of State Inspections, when in fact, the expose was citing the Department of Labor statistics. Micael Luo’s rebuttal to the rebuttal piece continues to criticize Bernstein by providing all the proof and documents Bernstein claims were absent or incorrect in the expose such as the newspaper ads, interviews, and statistical reports. While I feel that Bernstein had a solid basis to his claims, he was unable to critique the expose effectively. The overall tone of the rebuttal sounded as if he was bitter about the generalizations Sarah made because they were not the way his wife’s salons were. The Times should have cited their sources more clearly and provided all the documents and statistics they refer to in order to avoid the criticism they received.