A New York Times dispatch from Bangkok reports on "A Belarusian escort with close ties to a powerful Russian oligarch" who "said from behind bars in Bangkok on Monday that she had more than 16 hours of audio recordings that could help shed light on Russian meddling in United States elections"
Lower down, the article says, "Ms. Vashukevich and Mr. Kirillov, who also goes by the name Alex Lesley, are prominent on social media and are considered by some to be publicity seekers."
This struck me as a bizarre formulation. "Are considered by some" is the passive voice that is usually a danger signal that the Times is trying to spin a story. The Times doesn't say who these "some" are.
What's more, lots and lots and lots of people quoted by the Times or written about by the Times are also "publicity seekers," and the Times rarely if ever goes out of its way to point out the fact. There's an old joke that the most dangerous spot in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and a television camera. Does the Times describe Mr. Schumer as a "publicity seeker" every time that it reports on one of Senator Schumer's Sunday press conferences?
It reminded me of the Fox Butterfield profile of Patricia Bowman. The Times ran a correction acknowledging that "many readers" "inferred" that the publication of the piece "suggested that the Times was challenging her account." Whether this Belarusian escort is or isn't credible is a fair question for the Times to ask internally and to try to help readers assess themselves with context and information. But the vague statement that she is "considered by some to be" a "publicity seeker" seems to this reader, at least, to be not particularly helpful. When President Trump talks like that — "many people are saying," "a lot of people are saying," "I'm hearing" — the Times makes fun of him.