Bad travel advice

The most blogged item in the NY Times today is a list of the 53 places the august publication deems it worth to travel to next year. Perhaps it's the most blogged because they mention Algeria, where two bombs exploded yesterday, killing scores of people. I have to say I find major issues with some of the choices on that list. Puerto Vallarta? Prague? Puerto Plata? Las Vegas? All are overrun by tourism and tackiness, Puerto Vallarta being the least offensive, in my view. London, Buenos Aires, Tuscany? People do not need advice for these places; they are almost cliches.
One would think the Times would suggest places that are not under the terrible influence of unbridled tourism, and they do, for instance, suggest you go to Teheran, Libya, Laos or Namibia.
I would add Mexico City, which is doing very well these days. It's very hip and endlessly interesting and the food rules.
My experiences in Prague and Tuscany left much to be desired. Yes, they are beautiful but tourism has ruined them. I'm sure there are less crowded and interesting alternatives, like Budapest or Sicily instead.
The choices of the Times seem really predictable and boring.