But the Times article is a success, from its ideological point of view. It got its desired point across to progressive readers: there’s no issue at all with New York City’s proposed debit-card program. This “common-sense solution” for migrants to buy “food and baby supplies” has now been totally vetted by the Times and found to be perfectly safe and sound. The only problem for Times readers to worry about over breakfast is “conservative voices” who “upset people” with “incorrectly suggest[ive]” articles. The Times gives Mayor Adams the last, authoritative, unchallenged word: this project is part of a strategy to “find ideas of how to run cities more efficiently,” he says.

And yes, as is standard journalistic practice, before writing this piece, I asked both Fitzsimmons and her editor for on-the-record comments on its substantive points, including how to square Fitzsimmons’s assertion to me that my “piece raised important questions” with her reporting to Times readers that my piece was simply “incorrect” in its most substantive “suggestion.” How can both of those things be true? I got a response from a Times spokesperson: “Our story is fair and accurate. When Ms. Gelinas sent a correction request, editors at The Times thoroughly reviewed the matter and found no correctable errors.” 

Read both articles, in full, and decide for yourself.