I don't believe that NYT is trying to inform you about some obscure tax bill because it's interesting. It's no more interesting than my tax bill, or any other random corporation that happened to have a non-zero tax bill some year. The only reason it's interesting to you is because you have a particular political interest in this. That's perfectly legitimate for you to have that political interest. If they were just trying to inform you, they could inform you in a way that doesn't have any emotional framing. You could find it easily in their stock report or something. I believe NYT is trying to induce an emotional reaction in you for purely political reasons in order to influence the population towards a particular end goal. That is why they are acting like a PAC and not a newspaper.

That is an odd argument to make. By your definition, news is not news unless it is not of interest to me?

News is not news if its purpose is a specific political outcome. The FedEx stock report, which also includes its tax bill, is news. I hope you can see the difference in purpose between the stock report and the article you just saw.

I see now. You alone are the arbiter what constitutes true news. Everything else propaganda aimed at specific outcome.

It may come as a surprise to you, but even your cherished Fedex stock report is a piece of propaganda aimed at specic audience ( investors ). It even has a singular political aim in mind.

Can you guess what it is?

I'm not the personal arbiter, I'm describing a reasonably objective measure of the difference between straight news journalism and political activism. This measure is available to anyone who understood basic literary analysis in high school, so it's available to almost everyone.

I welcome you to provide a different measure. In your opinion, where is the line? How could all observers reasonably differentiate between a piece of straight news journalism and political propaganda?