So? It provides the information, plus a good, logical, rational explanation of how to interpret that data. Do you find any fault with their arguments?
Yes, they neglected to include most of the data
Of course they are. That difference is rooted in other racial differences. And the rate isn't "much higher", it's around 20-25% higher, which is basically noise when you look at social science data.
Those are fairly high numbers - more than statistical noise. The civilian reported numbers are even higher.
The NYT is not a credible source of news or analysis, and it is highly biased, far more than those papers you call "right wing".
The NYT is a very reliable source and one of the most trusted in the country. The right tries to portray them as not credible because facts make the right look back. If you claim they're not credible, you must also think the national review is not credible since they get their information from the NYT.
The media coverage is ridiculous, and focus instead on actual fake stories of people who are pretending to be assaulted by Trump supporters, a claim, as far as I know, always unfounded. End of rant. Good luck America.
What about the story a couple days ago where a Trump supporter murdered some people because of his alt-right views
"Engineering meets art in the parking lot and things explode." -- Garry Peterson, about Survival Research Labs