The only misrepresentation of fact in that article that I can see is the implication that Android/ChromeOS supports Flash. And that's only slightly misrepresentative, as I'm sure that the folks over at Google would be glad to include Flash support, whereas Apple has made it clear that they will not ever do that.

Also,

Originally Posted By: hybrid8
if it had also said in that article that African Americans weren't as smart as other Americans, would it still have been OK for the NYT to run it simply because it wasn't one of their in-house staffers that wrote it?

Holy crap, dude. But, okay, ignoring the gross incongruity of comparing Apple's closed development model to racist eugenics, you brought up an article critical of the iPad, were very mildly chastised for blowing the relevance of some random dude's opinion out of proportion, apparently went to find an article from a reputable source critical of the iPad, posted a link to said article that actually wasn't really critical of the iPad at all, then when it's pointed out that the reputable source didn't even author the content, you ask if it's okay for the reputable source to publish ideas that aren't its own.

This is pretty typical of your arguments. You constantly reframe the argument so that any point made by someone else isn't relevant, to the point that what you end up arguing has no relationship to what you started with. To elucidate this example, you basically went from "people have irrational opinions of the iPad" to "the New York Times shouldn't be allowed to republish syndicated content I don't agree with".
_________________________
Bitt Faulk