> frittering away its prodigious reputational inheritance painstakingly assembled by generations of journalist that knew what it meant to report the facts and "allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions".

Wait, are you suggesting that the NY Times used not to do opinion? When was this? Practically all newspapers (or at least general-audience newspapers; trade newsletters and similar less so) have, for centuries.

The basic narrative (chefs used not, in general, be very important, then they became this weird all-important publicly venerated dictator figure who could get away with not only assaulting employees, but actually writing about doing so in books, now there's a backlash against that) doesn't seem that out-there...