Some of what you say is right but the idea that a six month investigation should “let the reader decide” seems to me to miss the point: tell me what you found! A six month trial ending in a hung jury is a rare and unsatisfactory thing. And if I spend six months researching anything (from a bike purchase to burritos vs bagels) I will likely have discovered something far more conclusive than “on the one hand burritos are delicious; on the other hand bagels are yummy.” I don’t think what the NYT wrote can be so simply written off as advocacy or one-sided or without context. They dug, and this is what they found and believed was the most salient. Isn’t that their job? “Letting the reader decide” feels like a cop out.
And here is my late-stage context: I haven’t read the NYT story, and also I own the entire New York Times and Amazon.com killed my childhood puppy.