The New York Times coverage of Ebola has been erratic, as Twitter commentators have pointed out effectively. My former colleague Josh Gerstein notices a Times article that manages to describe the disease as "extremely infectious but also tremendously hard to catch."
And Gabriel Malor notes that when Republicans suggested a travel ban between America and African countries hit hard by Ebola, the Times framed it as "paranoia" in an article headlined "Experts Oppose Ebola Travel Ban." In reporting a few days later that some Democrats also support a travel ban, the Times was far more understanding and sympathetic, apologetically explaining that "the line between vigilance and hysteria can be as blurry as the edges of a watercolor painting."