The NYT summary sounds accurate to me.

> > Wherever per-person Facebook use rose to one standard deviation above the national average, attacks on refugees increased by about 50 percent.

> That sounds horrible, but it is actually a claim about variation across municipalities, not a claim about the absolute importance of the internet.

That's why they used the word "wherever," to emphasis that it was based on locality.

That seems to form the bulk of Mr Cowen's objection. The remainder appears to be recitation of the stock phrase "correlation is not causation," mock horror and snark about the methods the study used (Nutella! heaven forbid!), and expressing his general confusion about parts of the study he doesn't understand.

To my eyes, this doesn't appear to be a "comically erroneous study," unless, as Mr. Cowen does, you find great intrinsic humor in the concept of Nutella. Nor does the NYT reporting on it seem to misrepresent the study any more than articles for the layperson usually do.

But yet, we give them credibility on political stories? That’s what makes no sense to me, we call them out on stories in which we have close experience, but we accept their stories on politics as if they were “objective,” because they happen to support our own bias. A story biased against the president: totally true, it’s “respectable” journalism. A story pushing an anti-Google agenda, “what were they thinking, this isn’t true!” People want to believe they are right and they find outlets that agree with them and claim them “objective.” A conservative thinks Limbaugh is correct, a liberal thinks Maddow is correct. It’s a circle jerk of self congratulation that leads to sharply partisan hatred. Unfortunately there isn’t a Walter Cronkite to find the objective middle.

Well, I don't think there are many people left who give them any credibility on political stories outside of those looking for an echo chamber. They are Fox News for people who identify as "progressive intellectuals".

That’s MSNBC, not NYT. In fact, their coverage goes out of their way to support centrist positions. (Unless you’re discussing their opinion columns, which include everyone from Gorbachev to Sean Spicer to Chelsea Manning.)

>their coverage goes out of their way to support

“Out of their way” as in it’s difficult for them to support anything other than leftist views? Do you not see the problem there?

To be more verbose, giving plausible deniability to actors who are clearly malicious.