The first link regarding Jayson Blair is the clearest counterpoint, showing a Times reporter fabricating story. This is absolutely an example of the NYT failing. But the same Wikipedia article says that the NYT, on their own initiative, investigated and fired Jayson Blair in a very public manner.
> After internal investigations, The New York Times reported on Blair's journalistic misdeeds in an "unprecedented"[14] 7,239-word front-page story on May 11, 2003, headlined "Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception."[2] The story called the affair "a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper."
To me, publishing Jayson Blair's articles is a huge mistake by the Times. But the way they handle it proves that they do hold their journalistic values in high regard.
The 2nd article itself admits that what the Times published is supported by many others in the media. (Their point is that the entire media is lying.) The audio proof that the 2nd article mentions is also not included, so I don't know if I should trust it more than I trust the Times.
The 3rd link is not easy to understand for me since there isn't a lot of context.
Citation needed.
Here are some counterpoints to your assertion that they would not print a story not independently corroborated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair
http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/28/media-double-down-after-...
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/columbia-and-new-york-...
http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=4379 [duke lacrosse reporting]
https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/wrong_wrong_wrong_w...
A great example of the Times and their “anonymous” sources (and lack of corroboration) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/maybe.htm...
Suggesting that the Times “isn’t going to print a story..without further vetting” is based on some idealistic view of the Times, but not necessarily on a reality based on their history. Didn’t they also just print an anonymous op-ed, providing zero opportunity to challenge or verify any of the claims contained therein?
The Times is a reputable as any other news outlet, but Reuter’s they are not. They are laced with a history of subtle bias and outright dishonesty when it suits them.