Finally, someone at the New York Times figured out that Nina Planck’s irrational diatribe is one-sided and full of mis-leading information, which I discussed here. From the Public Editor at the Times:
Her Exhibit A was a trial in Atlanta in which a vegan couple were convicted of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty in the death of their 6-week-old son, who was fed mainly soy milk and apple juice and weighed only 3.5 pounds. The column set off a torrent of reader e-mail that is still coming in – much of it from vegans who send photos of their healthy children or complain bitterly of being harassed by friends and relatives using Planck’s column as proof that their diet is dangerous.
If there was another side, a legitimate argument that veganism isn’t harmful, Planck didn’t tell you – not her obligation, [editor of the editorial page Andrew] Rosenthal and [head of the op-ed page David] Shipley say. But unlike the Middle East, The Times has not presented another view, or anything, on veganism on its op-ed pages for 16 years. There has been scant news coverage in the past five years.
There is another side.
Bingo. I agree that the op-ed page does not need to be balanced on presenting information. Sometimes, a bias is appropriate. (Obviously.) But it’s good to see someone at the New York Times stand up for truth in this case because Planck provided misinformation. She lied as a result of her bias. That is different than analyzing facts and declaring one stance correct.
The editorial provides further explanation as to why Planck’s article was flawed. I challenged in my original entry most of what the Public Editor now challenges about Planck’s claims. Still, the entire editorial is worth reading to fully demonstrate how ridiculous Planck’s essay was, given the facts she misrepresented and omitted.
Enjoy Ms. Planck’s reply to the furor. Obviously, I disagree with her and find much of her reply laughable. However, I don’t feel like rebutting any of her claims today. Read it and judge for yourself.