I'm surprised you blame your lack of reading skills on the New York Times.
Because a problem that isn't perceived is, almost by definition, no longer a problem.
Look: this is basically the tree-in-forest-noise debate. And your chosen interpretation actually isn't completely without merit.
But what is illegitimate is to deny even the existence of other interpretations, and then use that ignorance for yet another tiresome and shallow attack that does not even have the self-awareness to recognise how preposterous it is to believe two dozen words could somehow expose this writer as a complete fraud while the entirety of the Time's editorial leadership missed it.
Because a problem that isn't perceived is, almost by definition, no longer a problem.
Look: this is basically the tree-in-forest-noise debate. And your chosen interpretation actually isn't completely without merit.
But what is illegitimate is to deny even the existence of other interpretations, and then use that ignorance for yet another tiresome and shallow attack that does not even have the self-awareness to recognise how preposterous it is to believe two dozen words could somehow expose this writer as a complete fraud while the entirety of the Time's editorial leadership missed it.