The "Deal Professor" column in the Times about Sears Holdings, has many problems. One is that it inaccurately describes Fairholme Capital as "another hedge fund." As I understand it, Fairholme has a small hedge fund but is primarily a mutual fund manager.

Business reporter Michael de la Merced has apparently been released from his extensive public-service journalism responsibilities on the Kenneth Griffin divorce beat for long enough to write a ridiculous article smearing Sears Holdings for an announcement that sent the company's stock soaring 31% on Friday.

Wrote Mr. de la Merced in the Times:

On Friday, the struggling retailer unveiled yet another unusual financial maneuver that it may employ: selling some of its stores to a new real estate investment trust...

The maneuver also highlights the company's dwindling range of potential financing options. ... sale-leaseback, as the contemplated maneuver is known, would be the most drastic bit of financial engineering yet. ...Though selling the stores to the REIT would generate much-needed cash and assuage any vendors nervous about being paid, the move would also saddle Sears with lease payments and yet another financial burden.

Removing assets from Sears itself could also impair the retailer's ability to take out additional financing in the future.

And the ultimate benefit for shareholders is not entirely clear, since they must finance the creation of any such investment trust and therefore would have to pay for the purchase of the department stores.

So when Sears Holdings is considering doing a sale-leaseback, the Times describes it as "unusual" and a "drastic bit of financial engineering," with no clear benefit to shareholders. Funny, when it was the New York Times Company, five years ago, that raised $225 million through a sale and leaseback of part of its headquarters building, the newspaper didn't mention anything about it being drastic, and it didn't do any fretting about the lack of clear benefits to shareholders or saddling the Times company with "yet another financial burden." You can go read the article the Times wrote in 2009 about the Times Company's own sale leaseback here and compare it to the coverage of the Sears Holdings announcement. Also in 2009, the Times wrote a real estate trend story about sale-leasebacks. Far from describing the transactions as "unusual," the 2009 trend story reported that there had been $15 billion worth of such deals in 2007, and that "an increasing number of corporations — especially those whose bond ratings are less than investment grade — are clamoring to divest themselves of their real estate through sale-leasebacks." The 2009 article named ATT, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, and the New York Times Company as among the firms that have engaged in the transactions.

The Times may want to consider running a correction explaining that the transaction would be neither "unusual" nor "drastic," and it may want to consider avoiding those sorts of alarmist adjectives in the future in favor of reporting the news in a more straightforward manner.

Disclosure: I own some Sears Holdings shares and know and like some of the directors. I have not discussed this with them.

From a front-page news article in the Times about participation by big philanthropic foundations in an effort to assist Detroit through bankruptcy proceedings:

In the fall of 2013, Mariam Noland, the president of the Detroit-based Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan, ran into Judge Rosen in a deli near the courthouse. She said she had heard that he was working on the city's bankruptcy case, and offered, somewhat offhandedly, her help. Not long after, Judge Rosen called. He asked her to call foundation leaders and invite them to Detroit for a meeting.

The Times doesn't get into the question of whether it was appropriate for Ms. Noland to approach a judge in a deli to talk about a case in which the judge was involved.

From an article in the N.Y/Region section of the Times from the same day:

The judge also admonished Ms. Misir for what he called her "ex parte communications" with his chambers. Judge Karas said Ms. Misir had called his chambers and had spoken to a law clerk for about 10 minutes about the scheduling of the pretrial conference and expressing criticism of the prosecutors.

Ms. Misir, in her letter on Wednesday, said she had called to resolve multiple scheduling and procedural issues; denied communicating on the "merits" of the case; and said "the frustration" she expressed stemmed from her condition and what she saw as the prosecutors' behavior toward her "at a medically delicate time."

The American Bar Association (here) and the Hawaii State Judiciary (here) have some helpful explanation of what "ex parte communications" are and why ordinarily it's not a good idea for people to go up to judges out of court to discuss cases in which the judges are involved. The Detroit story in the Times would have been stronger with a sentence or two, or a paragraph even, getting into the question of whether that communication in the deli was appropriate under the rules.

Is Palestinian Arab unrest in Jerusalem the sign of a third Intifada, or uprising? The Times' answer to this question apparently depends on what time of day you look at the paper's website. The useful site NewsDiffs.org tracks how, over the course of the day, the Times changed the headline over pretty much the same news article, from "Few See New Palestinian Intifada in Jerusalem Unrest" to "In Jerusalem Unrest, Signs of a 'Run-Over Intifada' for the 21st Century." It would be nice for the many readers who saw the first headline on the Times home page during the day to get some notification or explanation of why it was changed. Did it become inaccurate?

Times columnist Roger Cohen's announced keynote appearance at a fundraiser for the National Iranian American Council, which supports weakening American sanctions on Iran, has been canceled, Ron Radosh reports at PJM. We had highlighted the scheduled appearance in a post here.

Add another gem to yesterday's list of pre-election stories that make the Times look foolish:

October 27: Headline: "Democrats Seem Poised to Pick Up a Few Governor's Seats."

In fact, the Republicans are the ones who increased their number of governors seats, to at least 32 from 29 going in to the election.

Is it any accident that all of the stories in this series are from "The Upshot," the new "data-driven" (ha!) Times liberal opinion section masquerading as news?

Thanks to reader-participant-community member-watchdog-content co-creator J. for sending the tip.

The wave of Republican victories in yesterday's election have the New York Times, particularly its "Upshot" team of liberal-leaning opinion disguised as news, looking pretty foolish.

October 30: "Why Polls Tend to Undercount Democrats": "As Election Day nears, Democratic hopes increasingly hinge on the possibility that the polls will simply prove wrong. But that possibility is not far-fetched. The polls have generally underestimated Democrats in recent years, and there are reasons to think it could happen again."

October 31: "Early Voting Numbers Look Good For Democrats": "The turnout among black voters is particularly encouraging for Democrats...The figures are still good news for Democrats. The early-voting surge gives them a chance to pull off upsets in crucial states."

November 4: "Why the Time Is Now to Predict (Loudly) a Democratic Victory." This last piece, unlike the other two, seems to be at least partly intentionally humorous. But still.

Meanwhile, today's Times front page lead headline is "G.O.P. Takes Senate/Riding Voter Anger to Take Control of Congress." Yesterday's Wall Street Journal front page had "Sullen Voters Set to Deliver Another Demand for Change." Why is it that when Americans vote for Republicans the press describes them as angry or sullen? It seems to me that if anyone seems angry or sullen here it is not the voters, but the journalists.

A Times report about Michael Dell and his computer company is dismissive about Carl Icahn's achievements in intervening in Michael Dell's effort to take his computer company private:

The biggest roadblock was Mr. Icahn's demand for a higher price for his shares. After many shareholder votes and court challenges, Mr. Dell and his partners at the private equity firm Silver Lake raised their offer by a few pennies. But Mr. Icahn did not exactly bless the transaction.

Let's review the actual events. Mr. Dell's starting offer was $13.65 a share. He wound up increasing it to $13.75 a share and adding a special dividend of 13 cents a share. That is an increase of 23 cents a share, hardly "a few pennies." And there were enough shares outstanding that at 23 cents a share, the difference was between the $24.9 billion that was the final deal and the $24.4 billion initially offered: $500 million. That is not "a few pennies," it is half a billion dollars.

The Times describes Mr. Dell "reflecting on his tussle with Mr. Icahn, whom he calls 'the great Icahn,' in tones sarcastic even for a wealthy Texan." Without any sarcasm whatsoever, let me say that by winning an additional half billion dollars — not, as the Times describes it inaccurately, "a few pennies" — for Dell shareholders in this deal, Mr. Icahn yet again demonstrated his ability to add value.

The Times goes on to say that "Mr. Icahn is not the only one Mr. Dell remembers for kicking his company while it was down." How was it "kicking a company while it was down" to say that the company was worth more than the founder says it was worth?

A New York Times columnist, Roger Cohen, is scheduled to deliver a keynote address on November 15 at a California fundraiser for the National Iranian American Council, a group that advocates weakening American sanctions on Iran. An email from the group promoting the event carries the subject line "Join New York Times' Roger Cohen in Support of NIAC's Work!" and prominently features the New York Times logo.

An invitation to a fundraiser for an Iranian American group prominently features a New York Times columnist.

A front-page news article in today's Times matter-of-factly reports, "At a time when the Obama administration is lurching from crisis to crisis — a looming Cold War in Europe, a brutal Islamic caliphate in the Middle East and a deadly epidemic in West Africa — it is not surprising that long-term strategy would take a back seat."

The Times' acknowledgment of the existence of "a brutal Islamic caliphate in the Middle East" sent me back to this "White House Letter" from the Times in 2005, reporting somewhat dismissively about Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's warnings of a caliphate:

A number of scholars and former government officials take strong issue with the administration's warning about a new caliphate, and compare it to the fear of communism spread during the Cold War. They say that although Al Qaeda's statements do indeed describe a caliphate as a goal, the administration is exaggerating the magnitude of the threat as it seeks to gain support for its policies in Iraq.

In the view of John L. Esposito, an Islamic studies professor at Georgetown University, there is a difference between the ability of small bands of terrorists to commit attacks across the world and achieving global conquest.

"It is certainly correct to say that these people have a global design, but the administration ought to frame it realistically," said Mr. Esposito, the founding director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown. "Otherwise they can actually be playing into the hands of the Osama bin Ladens of the world because they raise this to a threat that is exponentially beyond anything that Osama bin Laden can deliver."

Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland, said Al Qaeda was not leading a movement that threatened to mobilize the vast majority of Muslims. A recent poll Mr. Telhami conducted with Zogby International of 3,900 people in six countries - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon - found that only 6 percent sympathized with Al Qaeda's goal of seeking an Islamic state.

The notion that Al Qaeda could create a new caliphate, he said, is simply wrong. "There's no chance in the world that they'll succeed," he said. "It's a silly threat."

It would be interesting for the Times to go back to Messrs. Esposito and Telhami to see what they have to say for themselves. Maybe they will say they were just talking about an Osama bin Laden-led caliphate, not the threat of some other new caliphate. The paper does keep on quoting them as experts.

The New York Times is reportedly ceasing publication of its automobile section. That news must provide some satisfaction to Tesla chairman Elon Musk, who responded online to a negative review that his car got in the Times. Whatever one thinks of Tesla, it has outlasted the Times auto section.

The Times calls in Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, to write a bizarre anti-Zionist book review:

Mr. Wolfe surveys important writers in the particularist and universalist traditions. He offers a stinging account of how casual but rancid bigotry has become an acceptable dimension for particularist Jewish writers committed to defending their own. Even with serious scholars like the Harvard professor Ruth R. Wisse and sensitive writers like Cynthia Ozick, Mr. Wolfe shows that empathy and principle evaporate into preening chauvinism and callous disregard for others.

If the Times is going to describe Ruth Wisse and Cynthia Ozick as bigots, fairness would dictate that they at least be given a chance to respond or defend themselves.

"Cuomo's and Christie's Shifts on Ebola are Criticized as Politics, Not Science," is the headline over a Times dispatch. An astute reader-watchdog-participant-community member-content co-creator observes: "You know where a newspaper stands on an issue whenever they accuse a politician of playing politics. In the case of Cuomo, I don't recall stories about Cuomo playing politics with medical marijuana, gay marriage and tax hikes."

Today's Times provides an update on the turmoil in its own upper management ranks. "Her Job Split in Two, Veteran Times Executive Opts To Leave" is the headline the paper hangs over its own story on the departure of Denise F. Warren. The article describes her as "the executive vice president for digital products" and "one of the New York Times Company's top executives."

Add her to the list of high-ranking Times women who have been forced out of the company or left on their own in recent years, including Jill Abramson, who was the executive editor; Vivian Schiller, who was senior vice president and general manager of NewYorkTimes.com; and Janet Robinson, who was CEO of the New York Times Company.

If this were happening at, say, Fox News, or the Republican National Committee, you can bet the price of an annual seven-day-a-week home delivery subscription to the Times at a non-discounted rate that the Times would be writing about it on the front page, or at least on a section front, as part of a "war on women" type trend, complete with anonymous quotes about misbehaving male executives and the organization's fundamentally patriarchal culture. No such coverage or dot-connecting appears in today's Times report, which doesn't even mention the other women who have left.

I'm not saying the Times is sexist; plenty of male executives have left the paper in recent years, too. But I do think the paper isn't particularly aggressive when it comes to covering itself. That's understandable but nonetheless hypocritical for a paper that recently faulted Bloomberg News for not covering Bloomberg.

David Brooks writes:

If you get outside the partisan boxes, there's a completely obvious agenda to create more middle-class, satisfying jobs. The federal government should borrow money at current interest rates to build infrastructure, including better bus networks so workers can get to distant jobs. The fact that the federal government has not passed major infrastructure legislation is mind-boggling, considering how much support there is from both parties.

Other shifts are more fundamental, but should be the signature themes of the next political era. First, the government should reduce its generosity to people who are not working but increase its support for people who are. That means reducing health benefits for the affluent elderly. But it means, as Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute recommends, increasing wage subsidies when employers hire the long-term unemployed and issuing relocation subsidies so people in high unemployment areas can move.

Sorry, I don't find this "obvious," much less "completely obvious." The federal government did pass "major infrastructure legislation," the stimulus bill, with debatable results. And there's all kinds of infrastructure spending packed into the regular budget, including the $76 billion that the U.S. Department of Transportation spent in 2013. States and regional authorities, not just the federal government, can fund such spending. The Times itself has reported recently on the under-construction $3.9 billion new Tappan Zee bridge over the Hudson River, as well as the construction, for $3.6 billion, of a new main terminal at La Guardia Airport.

As for busing workers to "distant jobs," how would those long commutes affect families? Why not an alternative strategy that would deregulate housing construction, or reform zoning, to allow more housing near the jobs, or more jobs near the cheap housing?

And as for "relocation subsidies so people in high unemployment areas can move," I'm glad to see Mr. Brooks covering this idea, which I wrote about back in February. But Mr. Brooks, who at his best (which is not in today's column) is alert to the law of unintended consequences and and also sensitive to the need for humility when it comes to policy prescriptions, doesn't spend any time exploring the potential downside of this plan. As I wrote back in February:

people move to places with better employment prospects all the time, even without government subsidies. Others may worry about the dislocating effects on people who leave their families and friends behind far away in pursuit of a job.

Structuring the subsidy as a loan, as Senator Thune's amendment does, runs the risk of saddling individuals already loaded with debt with even more of it. A 1981 evaluation of a 1976 federal relocation assistance program found that some program participants, those who moved and then couldn't find a job even in their new home, were disappointed. The subsidies may encourage people to move to places that appear to be full of jobs at one moment — like Las Vegas in 2005 or Wall Street in 2007 — but are actually about to crash.

Again, that doesn't mean that these ideas aren't worth considering or maybe even doing. But declaring something "completely obvious" doesn't make it so, and is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument in support of a policy.