The key point of Abramson's critique is that the NYT is misreporting several aspects of the latest Flynn developments, and uncritically repeating the Trump administration line about the investigation. In one example, he says they've mistated the exact nature of of what Mueller has been charged with investigating, then provides a document to back up this assertion.

The NYT then, in the second paragraph here, completely misstates the scope and purpose of the Mueller probe as it was authorized by the DOJ. Readers reading this paragraph would be completely misinformed about what Mueller has been tasked to do here. And it matters to America.



5/ This is what Mueller is *actually* authorized to investigate: not whether Trump's campaign aided efforts to undermine Clinton, but a) ANY links between Russia and Trump's campaign, b) ANY new matters that arise from that investigation, and c) ANY attempts to hinder the probe.


If the critique is true (and, honestly, the above example seems pretty damning unless he literally made up the document), in what universe does that constitute neutrality and non-editorial reporting?