Despite not liking the NYT example (too much clutter to my sight and using faces conveys little information because they are difficult to match and to distinguish), I really look forward to an age in which data analysts treat readers as intelligent and show data as data, not as nice plots.
The problem with charts is twofold:
a) They are very very easily turned into ideological tools.
b) They are very very easily turned into 'kitsch' pastiches made by uninformed people trying to make beautiful-looking summaries.
Look at the charts here (population density http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density): is it good or bad to have a population density of >500? Is it even good or bad to have it at 41-500? What would you have thought if the colors were reversed? Compare with this one (deforestation http://www.cryonie.com/en/world/images/map-deforestation.jpg): is it good or bad to have forests?