The discussion here is about the exploitation, not so much about the source of the initial spec of attention to be exploited.
Besides just wait until someone points out which type of politics were at the source of this change.
The same is true of this comment.
We're not talking about the font-family being unfashionable. This NYTimes page simply doesn't work (i.e., let me view its content) for me here on the latest version of a major web browser. This is a big, mature organization whose purpose is telling stories about the world, and it's failing at that.
By attempting to publish using cool web technologies that don't always work (apparently), they made the story about their medium, not their message. In the Scott McCloud system, they chose to emphasize step 6 (Surface) rather than step 5 (Craft). That's a perfectly valid artistic choice to make but they can't complain when people focus on that.
I think we all understand that it's terrible down there, but there are many, many places in the world where there is tragedy. And in my own experience, there is, and always has been, tragedies consistently happening in my own local area.
Discussing a tertiary topic does not diminish the the value of the main topic.
And food for thought, maybe if that site hadn't made such a poor technical and artistic/design choices, they would have made more of a difference, and caused more people to get the information correctly. (and certainly would less likely to have detracted the discussions from the main point)
That being said, I can't criticize anyone who commented on the article format or method of delivery because as soon as I saw it, I immediately shut the page.