Why does the paper being linked have a bearing on this?
The point is that even in a popular article or cursory summary, you at least need the context of an effect size with interpretable units.
If you have to follow a link to the paper even for that then the article itself would have to be worded in an entirely neutral way (as in, not indicating that the data supports any particular conclusion).
Any non-neutral presentation (like saying the data supports any type of conclusion about boys’ math performance in rich, white suburbs) will create subjective impressions about what the result means (which can be fine, so long as an effect size and interpretable units are attached).
People seem to disagree with my comment because the study (among others) was hyperlinked in the Times article. This strikes me as entirely missing the point of my comment.
Because this is a newspaper, not a scientific journal or peer review and newspapers are generally written for the average reader who probably does not want nor even understand all of those details.
But a basic notion of effect size and units are often included in popular news coverage of statistics. That's a basic expectation, involving zero nuance or statistical rigor.
"This is a newspaper" is a reason why they might leave off details about methodology, metrics of uncertainty, etc. Not a reason why they would make an entirely unqualified claim attached to no notion of the effect size.
Essentially you're saying we should hold the New York Times to the same reporting standards as some clickbait site that fuels confirmation bias with sensational headlines, and not expect large world-spanning newspapers to have even the slightest of better practices than that.
The point is that even in a popular article or cursory summary, you at least need the context of an effect size with interpretable units.
If you have to follow a link to the paper even for that then the article itself would have to be worded in an entirely neutral way (as in, not indicating that the data supports any particular conclusion).
Any non-neutral presentation (like saying the data supports any type of conclusion about boys’ math performance in rich, white suburbs) will create subjective impressions about what the result means (which can be fine, so long as an effect size and interpretable units are attached).
People seem to disagree with my comment because the study (among others) was hyperlinked in the Times article. This strikes me as entirely missing the point of my comment.