"Unsolved Murders Prompt Outcry on Lack of Justice for the Poor," is the headline over a Times dispatch from Huntington Station, N.Y., reporting on four homicides: "Many who live here said the inertia in the cases proved that the authorities paid too little attention to solving crimes when the victims were poor or Hispanic or lived in the more economically hardscrabble parts of town."

That accusation may fit with the Times' preconceived ideas about racial and income inequality. But is there any truth to it? The Times article, alas, doesn't shed any useful light on the question.I can name at least three unsolved homicides in which the victims were neither poor nor Hispanic. There is the killing earlier this year, in Tallahassee, Florida, of a law professor, Dan Markel, who was a colleague of mine on the Harvard Crimson. There is the 2005 killing in Savannah, Georgia, of Frederick Brockway Gleason III, There was the 1991 fatal stabbing of another law professor, Mary Joe Frug, in Cambridge, Mass.

If murders of poor or Hispanic victims are getting less attention from the police or prosecutors than are murders of rich or non-Hispanic white victims, it's a worthy topic for Times coverage. It'd also be interesting to examine whether the news media, including the Times, also tend to pay less attention to those crimes. But to be convincing, such coverage would also probably have to bring some statistics to bear, or at least some evidence beyond the fact that many people believe it to be true.

Heads up: I am about to criticize the Times for being unfairly critical of a Democratic politician, which may be surprising given my own center-right political leanings. In a news article about an appearance by Governor Andrew Cuomo and Vice President Biden, the Times reports that Mr. Biden "rambled on for 25 minutes about the importance of rebuilding the nation's infrastructure."

This is a perfect example of what a friend observed the other day: The Times has given up on reporting what happened, and instead taken on the job of telling you what it wants you to think about what happened. A neutral newspaper would say that Mr. Biden "spoke for 25 minutes about the importance of rebuilding the nation's infrastructure," or leave out the elapsed time of Mr. Biden's speech entirely, unless it was newsworthy in either its brevity or its length. But 25 minutes isn't exactly Castro-level. If the vice president was incoherent, better to demonstrate that with direct quotations than to characterize it as a "ramble" in a way that may lead readers who are Biden fans to suspect that the Times reporter either has a short attention span or is a secret agent of the Republican National Committee.

As an aside in a music review of a performance conducted by John Adams, whose opera "The Death of Klinghoffer" has prompted protests, Times critic Anthony Tommasini writes, "Many of those incensed by the opera admit to never having seen it."

The use of the word "admit" suggests that Mr. Tommasini thinks there is something wrong with protesting an opera one has not seen. But the rule he seems to be propounding — than in order to protest something or be angry about it, one has to have viewed it — doesn't make much sense to me. It seems to me to be legitimate to oppose child pornography, for example, without having seen it. Or to be incensed by the beheading of American journalists by the Islamic State without having viewed the videos of the killings.

The New York Times coverage of Ebola has been erratic, as Twitter commentators have pointed out effectively. My former colleague Josh Gerstein notices a Times article that manages to describe the disease as "extremely infectious but also tremendously hard to catch."

And Gabriel Malor notes that when Republicans suggested a travel ban between America and African countries hit hard by Ebola, the Times framed it as "paranoia" in an article headlined "Experts Oppose Ebola Travel Ban." In reporting a few days later that some Democrats also support a travel ban, the Times was far more understanding and sympathetic, apologetically explaining that "the line between vigilance and hysteria can be as blurry as the edges of a watercolor painting."

Paul Krugman's column is about a force in the book industry whose "power is really immense." He explains that "Book sales depend crucially on buzz and word of mouth (which is why authors are often sent on grueling book tours); you buy a book because you've heard about it, because other people are reading it, because it's a topic of conversation, because it's made the best-seller list." And he says that this force in the book industry, the one he is writing about, "possesses ... the power to kill the buzz."

The force that Professor Krugman is writing about is Amazon, and he calls for the federal government to break it up, or at least "curb its power," on antitrust grounds the way it did with Standard Oil.

But imagine if Professor Krugman's argument were applied to another "immense" power in the book industry — The New York Times itself.

Professor Krugman faults Amazon for its supposed "selectivity." He writes:

Specifically, the penalty Amazon is imposing on Hachette books is bad in itself, but there's also a curious selectivity in the way that penalty has been applied. Last month the Times's Bits blog documented the case of two Hachette books receiving very different treatment. One is Daniel Schulman's "Sons of Wichita," a profile of the Koch brothers; the other is "The Way Forward," by Paul Ryan, who was Mitt Romney's running mate and is chairman of the House Budget Committee. Both are listed as eligible for Amazon Prime, and for Mr. Ryan's book Amazon offers the usual free two-day delivery. What about "Sons of Wichita"? As of Sunday, it "usually ships in 2 to 3 weeks." Uh-huh.

Which brings us back to the key question. Don't tell me that Amazon is giving consumers what they want, or that it has earned its position. What matters is whether it has too much power, and is abusing that power. Well, it does, and it is.

Well, to begin with, this distorts the reality. Here's an account from a Times news article:

The day after publication of "The Way Forward," the host of CNBC's "Squawk Box," Andrew Ross Sorkin, told Mr. Ryan, "Very hard to buy your book, by the way, right now on Amazon."

"I know," a clearly frustrated Mr. Ryan answered. "Because that is what Amazon is doing with Hachette."

A person close to Mr. Ryan, the 2012 Republican vice presidential candidate, said later that, "For a while, all you could see on Amazon was the audiobook."

Mr. Berman directly challenged any suggestion that the book was impossible to buy. "Mr. Ryan's book was available for purchase in print and digital formats at its publication date," the spokesman wrote in an email. He declined to elaborate.

Not long after Mr. Ryan's appearance on CNBC, any problems with his book's visibility ended. It started shipping without delays, in sharp contrast to many other Hachette books.

But second of all, consider how the New York Times itself, a powerful force in creating buzz in the book industry, has treated the two books. The attack on the Koch brothers, by Mr. Schulman, got a full-length Sunday review by Nicholas Lemann, was featured in the Times Book Review podcast, and was mentioned yet again in the Sunday Book Review as an "Editors' Choice." As for Mr. Ryan's book, its treatment in the Times has primarily come in articles about Amazon.com. When it showed up at no. 5 on the Times bestseller list, the book review deigned to mention it in a two paragraph item that denounced the book as being "full of your basic agitprop" and inaccurately described it as Mr. Ryan's "first book," a distinction that in fact belongs to the 2010 book Young Guns, which the Times itself handled back in 2010 with a four-sentence review that managed to be about 100 percent wrong.

By Professor Krugman's standard that a powerful book industry force treating two different books differently is cause for the government to step in, the Times columnist ought to be calling for the Justice Department to rush into Times Square and take dramatic action. It's enough to make a cynic suspect that the Times panic over Amazon isn't about its market power or disparate treatment at all, but the fact that Amazon's CEO owns the Washington Post, a newspaper that competes with the New York Times. Or about the fact that the Amazon CEO, Jeff Bezos reportedly has libertarian-oriented politics rather than Professor Krugman's statist views.

For the price of $6,995, the New York Times is offering 13-day tours of Iran guided by Times journalist Elaine Sciolino. Promotional material for the tour on the Times website promises "luxurious hotels" and describes Tehran as a city where "the young and fashionable adopt a new trendy joie de vivre." Also on the itinerary: "a pleasant evening stroll around the colorful bazaars," along with insights into the "accomplishments" of the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

The U.S. Treasury Department website advises that notwithstanding the American economic sanctions on Iran, "All transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from Iran, including the importation of accompanied baggage for personal use, payment of maintenance and living expenses and acquisition of goods or services for personal use are permitted."

The State Department, however, warns: "Some elements in Iran remain hostile to the United States. As a result, U.S. citizens may be subject to harassment or arrest while traveling or residing in Iran...The U.S. government does not have diplomatic or consular relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran and therefore cannot provide protection or routine consular services to U.S. citizens in Iran."

Travelers dissatisfied with their experience on the trip may have a tough time if they try to sue. The "terms and conditions" for the trip include a "binding arbitration clause" that gives arbitrators, "not any federal, state, or local court or agency," "exclusive authority to resolve any dispute" related to the trip. A 2010 New York Times editorial described such binding arbitration clauses as "pretty unfair" and advised readers to "beware" them.

The Times promotional language says participants will "Enjoy some time haggling over spices, textiles, antiques and copper handicrafts" at the Vakil Bazaar in Shiraz before retiring to their "five-star hotel boasting stunning Persian soft furnishings." Another day is said to feature a "relaxing evening and dinner."

There's no mention at all in the Times promotional language about the tour of Iran's status as a state supporter of terrorism, of its pursuit of nuclear weapons, or of its human rights abuses. For information about those abuses, anyone considering plunking down nearly $7,000 for the pleasure of accompanying a Times journalist on a "relaxing evening and dinner" after antique shopping in Iran may want to consider, first, browsing the State Department's latest human rights report on Iran. It reports that under Iranian law, "a woman who appears in public without an appropriate headscarf (hijab) may be sentenced to lashings and fined." It also says that "The law criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual activity, which may be punishable by death or flogging."

One can understand why the Times is seeking new revenue opportunities as a tour operator, since its revenues in traditional areas such as newspaper subscriptions and advertising are not growing fast enough to satisfy investors. But there is potential for this sort of thing to adversely affect the Times' journalism. How fair will Times journalism be toward those calling for tougher Iran sanctions if the sanctions would force the newspaper to cancel its lucrative luxury tours of Iran? Why are Times journalists lending their reputations, such as they are, to promotional material that describes Iran as a kind of paradise — "colorful bazaars," "trendy joie de vivre" — while skipping over the reality of other parts of Iran, like, say, Evin Prison?

Thomas Friedman's New York Times column is about the Secret Service scandal. Who does he blame? Not President Obama, who as head of the executive branch is in charge of the agency. Not the secretary of homeland security, the department into which the Secret Service was dumped by the George W. Bush administration. No, the three-time Pulitzer Prize winner blames Congress, for going on recess. The one villain named by Mr. Friedman in his column is, wait for it, Eric Cantor, the former House Majority Leader, whose crime, in Mr. Friedman's view, is going to work for a Wall Street firm. Give the Times columnist credit for originality. Who'd have thought there'd be a way to blame the Secret Service scandal on House Republicans?

"Health Plan Cancellations Are Coming, but for Relatively Few" is the headline over an article on page A3 of my print New York Times. It is labeled "The Upshot" but otherwise carries no indication of whether it is news, opinion, or something else. The article begins as follows:

People are starting to get letters telling them their health insurance plans have been canceled because of the Affordable Care Act. Because the letters will go out just before the midterm congressional elections, they are likely to get a lot of attention. There have been several stories this past week. But the people affected will represent only a small fraction of the population with health insurance.

The cancellations are occurring at the state level, and some insurance regulators don't require any reporting, so a precise head count is difficult. But it appears that as many as several hundred thousand people will find their plans canceled this year. That sounds like a lot of people, but to put it in context: The total number of Americans with health insurance is more than 276 million, according to a recent government survey. The individual insurance market contains about 20 million people, according to estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation that will be published later this month.

If you can't see the bias here, imagine the Times applying the same standard to other areas of news coverage. For example, the General Motors fatalities related to recalled vehicles. The Times headlined one article on that issue, "13 Deaths, Untold Heartache, From G.M. Defect." If the Times covered GM the way it covered ObamaCare, the headline would have been "G.M. Defect Causes Relatively Few Deaths," and the news article would have gone on to emphasize how GM has tens of millions of vehicles on the road that haven't caused any deaths, and that the death-causing GM vehicles "represent only a small fraction" of the total fleet. Or imagine if the Times coverage of the eight insider trading convictions at SAC Capital had been headlined "Insider Trading Convictions, but for Relatively Few," emphasizing that those convicted "represent only a small fraction" of those who worked at the hedge fund.

A cynic might draw the conclusion that the Times is hostile to corporate America (GM) and the financial industry (SAC Capital), and totally in the tank for President Obama and his health care law (ObamaCare). But "to put it in context," the biased headlines represent only a small fraction of the total headlines that the newspaper publishes.

Speaking just as one reader, I'd prefer that the Times just deliver me straight the news that "several hundred thousand people" will find their health plans canceled, and let me decide for myself whether that is "relatively few" or not.

A front-page Times account of the extortion of immigrants by those in the "ruthless," "ugly business of human smuggling" features some vivid and valuable reporting but runs astray in an ideological lecture:

Behind the surge of young migrants showing up for a shot at the American dream is a system of cruel and unregulated capitalism with a proven ability to adapt. The human export industry in the region is now worth billions of dollars, experts say, and it has become more ruthless and sophisticated than ever, employing a growing array of opportunists who trap, rape and rob from the point of departure to the end of the road.

The Times sees the problem with this smuggling arising from the fact that it is "unregulated capitalism." I see it the opposite way — it is an excess of government regulation that caused the problem. Without the government-imposed limits on legal immigration, these smugglers would be out of business.

The lead editorial in today's New York Times calls for passage of marijuana legalization measures in Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia, describing the drug as "far less dangerous than alcohol" and denouncing "harsh criminal penalties."

Meanwhile, over in reality — I mean, the sports section — a "news analysis" of swimmer Michael Phelps entering a six-week inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program after being arrested and charged with driving under the influence reports:

So much of Phelps's bad behavior over the years has been enabled by people invested in him carrying his sport on his broad shoulders. Would he be guilty of continuing lapses in judgment if USA Swimming had suspended Phelps for more than three months in 2009, after the marijuana pipe photograph surfaced, and he had been forced to sit out the World Championships in Rome that year?

So the editorial page is arguing that the marijuana penalties are too harsh, while the sports page is arguing that in the case of Olympic gold medalist Phelps, the marijuana penalty wasn't harsh enough. It's like they used to say about the Wall Street Journal news and editorial sections — two papers for the price of one.

The lead news article in today's Times is a profile of the Dallas Ebola victim. It carries the byline of two-time Pulitzer-prize winner Kevin Sack, and it also carries some pretty compelling and fascinating reporting. Alas, it also carries a real clunker of a sentence that some editor should have caught and fixed: "Tragedy befell Ms. Troh in February when a daughter in Liberia died during childbirth."

Yikes. Can't Times readers be counted on to react with the appropriate emotion to the news of a death during childbirth without being clobbered over the head with notification that it is a "tragedy"? And who communicates in this passive-voice, non-idiomatic language — "Tragedy befell" — other than journalists?

"Hong Kong Protests Are Leaderless But Orderly" — Headline, page one, New York Times, October 1, 2014

"Joshua Wong Emerges as Unlikely Teenage Leader in Hong Kong Protests" — Headline, New York Times website, October 1, 2014

It's hard to see how both of these headlines can be accurate. The second story doesn't claim that Mr. Wong became the leader of the protests in the past 12 hours. How can the protests simultaneously have been leaderless and led by Joshua Wong? Both articles carry the byline of Times reporter Chris Buckley.

A fashion review in the Times begins as follows:

PARIS — Ever since Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi of Iraq let slip during his United Nations visit last week that his government had uncovered information about an ISIS plan to attack the subways in New York and Paris, there has been a niggling sense of unease hanging over the final fashion city of the season.

"You aren't too worried about taking the Métro?" said one showgoer to another when the subject of how to get to Givenchy came up on Sunday. (Though Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York had come forward to reassure his city, in Paris, Mayor Anne Hidalgo had done no such thing.)

It wasn't helped by the news of protests in Hong Kong, an erstwhile (maybe not so much anymore?) high-fashion retailing Valhalla. Still, by Monday and the last three days of the season, at least the Air France pilots had stopped striking.

You take the positive where you can find it, and watch your back. It may be one of the lessons of the season.

Some of us have reacted to the news of protests in favor of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law in Hong Kong with feelings of pride, joy, and pleasure. Some of us, including me, may consider them as positive news, rather than a nuisance such as, say, an Air France strike. The Times fashion critic, however, seems to see them as a source of "unease," driven by fear that the protests might hurt the luxury retail business. As if pro-democracy protests are in the same category as as a terrorist threat.

This reader would would prefer that the Times fashion critic quit the geopolitical commentary and just tell us about the clothes. But if she is going to write about politics, one wishes she'd be a bit less callous toward the protesters, and a bit less clumsy in her judgments. Had this fashion critic been sent to cover Martin Luther King's civil rights march on Washington, she'd have come back with a story on how it hurt business at the District of Columbia's downtown department stores.

"Vets Face Rising Worry Over Fleas" is the headline over a Times article on the front of the Science section. This struck me as a less-than-good headline for several reasons. First, I thought it was about military veterans. Then, once I realized that the headline was about veterinarians, it once again seemed inapt, because the ones worried about fleas are the pets and the pet-owners, not the veterinarians. Maybe the veterinarians are the ones "facing" the rising worry of the pet-owners, but the veterinarians interviewed in the Times article all seemed pretty calm.

Some recent Times-related writing of note from other publications:

In Ha'aretz, Noah Efron has a strong rebuttal to a ridiculous New York Times op-ed that ran under the headline "How Israel Silences Dissent."

In Salon, Daisy Hernandez has a first-person account of her experiences as an intern at the New York Times editorial page and on its metropolitan desk.

At Medium, Felix Salmon has a piece headlined "Annals of NYT Innumeracy, Bank Rossiya Edition."