There's
this article in the web edition of the NYT today about the deployment of the national missile defense system.
Along with slanted paragraphs such as this
Some experts point out that some of the harshest naysayers have barely changed their criticisms since Star Wars was proposed. That plan featured fanciful -- and largely impractical -- elements like nuclear-powered lasers based in space. A blanket dismissal on technical grounds no longer resonates as it once did, those experts say.
where critics are disparagingly described as "naysayers", supporters however are called "experts" although their point ("they have barely changed their criticisms since Star Wars was proposed") is idiotic on its face (Yeah, so critics of perpetuum mobile inventors also barely change their criticism every time another nutjob comes up with a new contraption. Does that mean their argument gets weaker over time? No, since the laws of physics don't change), there is this image alongside the text:
The caption reads:
"In an Army test, a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile was able to intercept the target, another missile."
Now the PAC-3 missle system does have resonably better performance than earlier versions deployed in the first Gulf war (it had a better hit/miss ratio, although it managed to shoot down two friendlies in the recent war), but it has absolutely nothing to do with defense against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), which the article is about.
So not only does an NYT "journalist" once again engage in stupid "he said/she said" reporting (while subtly slanting it against the critics), being only interested in how arguments will likely "sell" instead of examining if they actually make sense, the NYT picks an image of a successful missile test of a (in this context) completely irrelevant system.
Clueless or intentionally misleading?
You decide.