A Times news article headlined "The Rich Get Richer Through the Recovery" reports on an updated study by "the prominent economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty," showing that "The top 10 percent of earners took more than half of the country's total income in 2012, the highest level recorded since the government began collecting the relevant data a century ago."
The article does a lousy job of explaining what counts as "income" for the purpose of the study. Does the value of employer-provided health benefits count? The value of subsidized housing? Food stamps? Social Security payments? Is it post-tax income or pre-tax income? Sure, a reader can click through to the actual study and try to figure it out for himself, but these are all relevant points, and the Times article just doesn't deal with them.
And the "prominent" economists line is a laugher. If these guys were as prominent as the Times claims, the Times wouldn't have to tell readers that they are prominent. The description is either true, in which case it's unnecessary, or it's necessary, in which case it's inaccurate.