The New York Times reporting on Fryer’s police violence study is flawed (and will remain flawed) because all three articles, including the Public Editor’s piece, accept the interpretation that Fryer has given: that he has gathered data that represents a set of civilians at equivalent risk of getting shot by police based on civilian behavior and that the actual shootings display no bias (or have blacks less likely to be shot at than whites).
Providing context around the number of stops or arrests for blacks and whites (which the NYT didn’t do sufficiently in their original article) would lessen the damage, but doesn’t do anything to fix the flaw at the heart of the analysis and interpretation of the data. No amount of context can fix an article built around a mistake.
Simply put Fryer has not gathered data for a set of civilians at equivalent risk of getting shot by police.
You can read more about the problem with Fryer’s interpretation of the data here: FRYER STUDY DEMONSTRATES POLICE SHOW BIAS WHEN APPLYING CHARGES THEY BELIEVE JUSTIFY EXTREME FORCE