A Times dispatch from Fall River, Mass., reports, "Like other former mill towns throughout the Northeast, Fall River necessarily refocused its economic base after the textile industry began departing in the 1990s." (The language is repeated in a photo cutline that goes with the article.)

I wrote a book about John F. Kennedy, and in researching it, I found that even back in the 1950s, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, the textile industry was already fleeing the state. Back then it wasn't so much China that was the competitor but lower cost and less-unionized states in the South. But it just isn't accurate to say that the textile industry "began departing in the 1990s." The exodus of manufacturing jobs began long before then. If the Times doubts this, it could check its own archives. A dispatch in the Times datelined Fall River that appeared on Sunday, August 14, 1955, for example, referred to Fall River and New Bedford as "once thriving areas" and said that the cities had "been striving for industrial diversification in the thirty years since the cotton textile industry began to shift from New England to the South."

The Algemeiner has been publishing a lot of New York Times criticism by me focusing on Israel, Jewish matters, and the war on Islamist terrorism. I encourage anyone interested in those topics to check out the coverage at this link.

Reader-community member-watchdog-content co-creator Bob Hill of Pinecrest, Fla. writes:

Pete Wehner's op-ed referencing Lincoln's 1838 Lyceum Address appears to have confounded the two outbreaks of "mobocratic spirit" leading up to the speech. Wehner writes: "The speech was given in the aftermath of the lynching of a mixed-race boatman and the burning of a black abolitionist newspaper editor." In fact, the two incidents to which Lincoln referred were, in the first instance, the horrific burning alive of a mixed-race boatman, Francis McIntosh, in St. Louis, and, in the second, the shooting homicide, by what could be called a lynch mob, of the white abolitionist newspaper editor and Presbyterian minister, Elijah Lovejoy, across the river in Alton, Illinois. The details are covered at length in what is still the best treatment of the events, Freedom's Champion, by Paul Simon, the Democratic senator from Illinois.

I believe that Wehner is right, and that Trump would represent a marked break with the vision of Lincoln and the Founders. But if we are going to appeal to reason and history, then we have to get our facts straight.

A sidebar to an otherwise pretty fascinating Times article about Eli Zabar's adventures in the wine business introduces a list of wines with the following language: "The wine list at Eli Zabar's restaurant Eli's Table offers many great values; not just expensive older bottles, but moderately priced wines as well. Here are six examples of sparkling, white and red." The list of wines that follows includes bottles at the following prices: $195, $190, $60, $295, $250, and $60."

If $60 is the Times floor for a "moderately priced" bottle of wine and four of the six bottles on the list cost at least $190, you start to wonder who the newspaper thinks is reading this stuff, or whether the paper's definition of "moderately priced" has much to do with the reality of most Americans.

The Algemeiner is going to be publishing some of my writing about the New York Times' coverage of Israel and Jewish topics. The first piece is now up, about a Times editorial critical of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Please check out the column at the Algemeiner by clicking the link here.

A New York Times dispatch from Jerusalem gives a brief history of the conflict over sovereignty in the city as follows:

Israel conquered Jerusalem's Old City and its environs, along with the West Bank, from Jordan in the 1967 war. Then it expanded the city limits, taking in 28 West Bank villages on the high ground surrounding the city, and annexed the territory in a move that was never internationally recognized. Ever since, its leaders have claimed sovereignty over what they deem Israel's "united capital."

The problem with these potted context paragraphs is what they leave out. No mention of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem's Old City for thousands of years, of that Old City's Jewish Quarter, of the Temple Mount. No mention of the fact that Jerusalem was Israel's capital before the 1967 war, and that many of Israel's Jewish institutions — Hebrew University, the Knesset, the Israel Museum, Hadassah Medical Center — were in Jerusalem before 1967, and in some cases even before 1948. No mention of the fact that Jordan's control of eastern Jerusalem only dated back to Jordan's own decision to reject the U.N. partition plan for British mandatory Palestine and to attack Israel when it was founded. The Times makes it sound like the Jews are some sort of new invaders in Jerusalem, like the crusaders or Romans or something, rather than returning longtime residents.

Times restaurant critic Pete Wells, who we've noticed earlier (here and here) dilating on what he calls the "pleasure" of being served by women and "others who don't look like men of European descent," is at it again. In a three-star review of Bouley, Wells writes, "I wish more women worked in Bouley's dining room; the gender imbalance there is old-fashioned in the wrong way."

If Mr. Wells or the Times has evidence of discrimination in hiring, they should share it. Maybe it's worth a whole article. Instead, the paper keeps slipping these asides into restaurant reviews. There's nothing in the review about the gender composition of the kitchen staff, or of the fishermen who caught the food or the farmers that grew it. Mr. Wells doesn't make a strong case for why readers should care about the race or gender of who serves the food any more or less than they care about the race or gender of who cooks, plants, or kills it. Myself, I am happy to have the food brought to my table by a man, a woman, or even someone who doesn't fit neatly into traditional gender categories, so long as that person is efficient, knowledgable, unobtrusive, and friendly.

In USA Today, David Mastio has a nice dissection of a Times article about a poll purporting to show that "Nearly 20 percent of Mr. Trump's voters disagreed with Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation." Mr. Mastio writes:

Originally, Vavreck, the Times and YouGov only reported on the racially insensitive views of Republicans, failing to publish or even analyze the responses of potential Democratic voters. Vavreck only performed the Democratic analysis and released it to me on Friday after YouGov refused to release the data on Thursday and I contacted YouGov's European executives, its in-house polling expert and Vavreck herself.

While The New York Times, Time magazine, Nate Silver's 538 and Ezra Klein's Vox treated the poll as credible, the results are transparently ludicrous.

The Times science section waddled in recently with a big front-of-the-section news article about Senator Parry Murray's effort to secure government funding for in vitro fertilization treatment for injured veterans. The PBS News Hour program did this story back in January; NPR did it in February. It took the Times until March to get it in the paper. At a certain point it's not news, it's olds. The Times story gives no credit to either PBS or NPR.

A Times report on the news that the public editor, Margaret Sullivan, will become a columnist of the Washington Post includes this language: "Ms. Sullivan assumed her role at The Times in 2012, and her tenure was scheduled to end in August." August 2015? August 2016? It isn't clear from the Times article.

The article goes on:

In a memo to the staff, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., The Times's publisher, praised Ms. Sullivan, saying she had "ushered the position into a new age."

He said that she would remain at the paper for "a number of weeks" and that the search for a successor was underway. "We will be in a position to name Margaret's successor very soon," he wrote.

If this search is "underway," it seems to be without any public posting of the position on the careers section of the Times web site. Running a private search for the public editor job is the sort of thing that, if another organization did it, the Times would probably condemn it as an example of filling a position through the old boys network rather than through the sort of rules-based, transparent process that is more likely to give underrepresented or nontraditional (maybe even politically conservative!) job candidates an equal opportunity for consideration. If the posting ever does materialize, it may be merely pro forma, giving the Times the appearance of complying with equal opportunity hiring practices without really doing that.

A tweet from the New York Times World Twitter account included a photo and the line, "These women are condemned by conservatives for riding bikes in Gaza." While the idea of sexist "conservatives" may reinforce the preexisting ideas of the Times liberal readers and play well on social media, the article itself doesn't include the word "conservative." The people objecting to the bicycle riding are adherents of what the Times describes as "the Islamist Hamas movement." That might be as easily and accurately described as Islamic radicalism as conservatism.

Another word that doesn't appear in the article is terrorist. The Times refers to "a fighter in the militant group Islamic Jihad" and to "the 2014 war between Gaza militants and Israel." To the Times, they aren't terrorists, but militants, even when the groups in question are listed as terrorist groups by the U.S. government.

A Times article by Nicholas Confessore and Sarah Cohen appears under the derisive headline, "How Jeb Bush Spent $130 Million Running For President With Nothing To Show For It." It includes this passage:

Branding: $88,387

Right to Rise, the super PAC supporting Mr. Bush, and then his campaign directly, retained 30 Point Strategies, a public relations company in Bethesda, Md., specializing in "thought leadership" and "brand journalism," according to the firm's website. But in the end, the most lasting label of Mr. Bush was supplied by Mr. Trump: "low energy."

This incorrectly reports that what 30 Point provided the Right to Rise pac or the Bush campaign was "branding" or thought leadership. In fact that money paid purely for speechwriting — a bargain at the price, given that Hillary Clinton charged Goldman Sachs $675,000 for three speeches, and 30 Point provided Jeb Bush for a lot more than that for the $88,387. Reporting that would undercut the article's premise that Jeb Bush spent recklessly in pursuit of the presidency, but on the other hand, it would be accurate, which the story as written is not.

Ms. Cohen, incidentally, is president of the board of the organization Investigative Reporters and Editors. Her bio there describes her as "the editor for computer-assisted reporting at The New York Times." I don't know whether the computers she has assisting the reporters there allow the reporters to send emails outside the paper inquiring about the expenditures (as SmarterTimes, with many fewer resources than the Times, did) or look up phone numbers for the purpose of calling and asking, but there's no indication from the Times article, alas, that any reporting like that was done. We'll look forward to reading the correction on that one.

Amid a Thomas Friedman column claiming that "it's an outrage that we can't control our border" comes this passage:

Ted Cruz speaks of our government in the same way as the anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist, who says we should shrink government "to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." (Am I a bad person if I hope that when Norquist slips in that bathtub and has to call 911, no one answers?)

Mr. Norquist responded on Twitter with characteristic grace:

@NYTimesFriedman, an advocate for higher taxes, writes that he wishes me dead. I take that as a high compliment. I wish him a long life.

My own answer to Mr. Friedman's question would be that it doesn't necessarily make him a "bad person," but it is a bad thought. Am I a bad person if I hope the government makes Tom Friedman and his family pay the top tax rate he would impose on the rest of the country?

A Times article about the socialist senator from Vermont who is running for president as a Democrat, Bernie Sanders, reports that he "even spent time on an Israeli kibbutz in the 1960s." As William Safire points out on Twitter, the formulation "Israeli kibbutz" is a redundancy. Call the Squad Squad, as Mr. Safire might say.

Some might argue that the word "Israeli" helps people who don't know what a kibbutz is. But my view is that those people can look it up in a dictionary, and that the paper needn't be edited for the most ignorant readers. If the Times editors really think a definition is necessary, a more elegant way to do it would be with a parenthetical phrase — "a kibbutz, an Israeli collective farm, in the 1960s" — rather than the inartful way the paper wound up doing it.

Andrew Ross Sorkin's column today, which appears under the headline "Roadblocks en Route From Wall Street to Washington," has some problems.

Mr. Sorkin writes: "Henry Paulson, the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, was the last Wall Street executive to be appointed Treasury secretary." Not accurate. The current Treasury Secretary, Jacob Lew, is a former Wall Street executive, having earned a bonus of $940,000 for his work at Citigroup in 2008 on top of his base compensation of $1.1 million.

Mr. Sorkin describes Donald Trump as "perhaps the candidate with the closest ties to Wall Street." He doesn't mention that John Kasich was a Lehman Brothers managing director who earned $1.4 million from Lehman in 2008, or that Jeb Bush worked for seven years as a paid adviser to Lehman Brothers and its successor Barclays, for which he reportedly earned between $1.3 million and $2 million a year.

Mr. Sorkin writes, "no matter who wins the presidency this fall, chances are slim that anyone connected to Wall Street has a prayer of securing a top post in the administration." The article fails to consider the possibility that Michael Bloomberg wins the presidency.