Does it matter? What separates some random blog on blogspot from an op-ed in the NYT? If it's anything at all it should be that the op-ed is higher quality and more likely to have its facts in order. That clearly isn't the case at all, and that correctly degrades the brand of the entire newspaper. If they're willing to publish claims that are transparently false in their op-eds section why would it be any different in their news section? They already established that factual accuracy is optional.

> If they're willing to publish claims that are transparently false in their op-eds section why would it be any different in their news section?

Because op-eds are for controversial positions that are of public interest but aren't supported well enough or neutral enough for a news article. That's the definition. If it's clearly true you won't find it in an op-ed in general in any newspaper.

I'm sick of people who can't be bothered to look up terms they don't know using them to spuriously attack institutions that are crucial to our liberty in America.

OK, let's rephrase. Why have op-eds at all? I understand why 30 years ago. But today anyone can publish online. The op-ed appears to be an obsolete institution that's now seriously degrading trust in news outlets.

If bias and inaccuracy was random then "it's just interesting blogs" might be an acceptable way for op-ed sections to go. When the problems trend obviously in one direction it becomes clear that the entire organisation has an agenda.

crucial to our liberty in America

As you may have guessed, I'm not American, and I'm sick of meeting Americans who have completely bizarre and distorted views of the UK because of the factually inaccurate nonsense they read in this supposedly high quality "newspaper".

I wasn't speaking to that article specifically but at the lax stewardship that the NYT is under right now.

NYT Editorial Board members do write Op-Eds of the sort I mention.