As a frequent nail salon customer, I was extremely interested in the expose published by the New York Times. I felt as though it was a harsh reality check for people like me who walk in and walk out without really considering the working conditions for the sweet and diligent workers. The question of whether or not the Times was fairly criticized is a complex one.

I believe that the information written by reporter Sarah Maslin Nir was true, both because of the credibility of the news organization and because she provided images and specific examples which can be found in independent research by readers. However, I agree that the lack of attribution in the article was questionable along with the sweeping claims made about all nail salons. In this right, critiques from other news organizations and business owners are justified.

The New York Times article was far from balanced, lacking the insight from salon owners and acknowledgment of salons that actually do pay well and provide benefits for employes such as these listed in an article by The New Yorker Review.

QUEENS AREA NAILS
Seeking several large and small work experienced hands.
Base pay $120 plus tips and commissions.
Small work $70, plus tips and commissions.
Seeking part-time small and large work on weekends.
15 minutes two-way transport Flushing to Elmhurst provided.

This is why it is so important for readers to be skeptical of even their most trusted go-to news source. Reading articles on the same topic from multiple news sources will help readers to be more informed on controversial stories such as this one.