When the New York Times isn't hiring a photographer who dips crucifixes into urine to undermine Christianity to illustrate its stories, it's busy trying to undermine those who seek to put fluids of an entirely different sort into your car. Based on a post that first appeared on Will Franklin's Willisms blog, Stephen Spruiell of National Review's new media blog writes:

Times editorial writer Adam Cohen, on assignment to write about “security holes at chemical facilities” for the Times editorial series “An Insecure Nation,” traveled to an ExxonMobil refinery in Chalmette, LA. Cohen wrote that the security holes at this “time bomb” are “glaringly obvious.” As proof, Cohen offered up the following:

On a recent visit to Chalmette Refining, a Times editorial writer had no trouble standing in the nearby park for 15 minutes with a large knapsack.

Cohen neglected to mention that during the 15 minutes he stood around in the nearby park, the refinery’s security personnel and employees had him under surveillance, taking pictures of him with a hand-held camera, and that as Cohen started to leave, a security guard approached Cohen, told him that security had observed him and that he was causing concern. After Cohen told the security guard he was working on a story for the Times, the guard continued to watch Cohen until he drove away.

According to a series of e-mails provided by ExxonMobil spokesman Tom Cirigliano, an ExxonMobil employee wrote to Cohen after the editorial was published and asked him why he had not included these facts in his account.

Adam, I am attaching pictures taken in real time during the period that you assumed you were not being observed. While I clearly understand that this was an editorial that ran in your opinion pages, don't facts count in an editorial? Given that the photos (attached below) prove that we observed you within your 15 minute deadline, and that you were directly approached and questioned by our Security Manager, don’t we and your readers deserve a correction/clarification of this report/editorial (emphasis added)?

Cohen was under observation during his time in the park. Had he started taking pot shots at chemical tanks or trying to climb the fence into the facility, personnel could have seen him and acted.

It would have been easy to include these details in the editorial but it would have weakened the Times’s argument. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that for that reason, and not because the facts were irrelevant, they were omitted.

Update: Spruiell has since posted photos of Cohen and his satchel or backpack from Exxon's security cameras.