Perhaps @NYTimesOpinion could explain how the highlighted passage (screenshot) from today's @BretStephensNYT column isn't deliberately misleading given the Times previous clarification about @JaneMayerNYer reporting on Ms. Ramierez's story. 
The clear implication by @BretStephensNYT is that the Times reporting refutes the reporting done by @RonanFarrow and @JaneMayerNYer, but this is untrue. The Times reporting is simply incomplete. To use this as a knock against Ms. Ramierez's credibility is perpetuating a lie.
For a guy who is worried about "Gawker standards" in the same column, it's a particularly rich irony that @BretStephensNYT is relying on a clearly misleading characterization to make his case for more care and probity in journalism.
I'd like to be able to pose my question to the @NYTimesOpinion public editor, but they don't have one of them anymore, and their most effective one @Sulliview now writes for their chief competitor.
