Yes I was afraid you were going to re-emphasize the horrors of the Iraq war. But the thread is about whether the NYT can reasonably be called 'fact-free' or not. And if all you can come up with are inaccuracies from 17-18 years ago then I am (sorry to say that I am) simply not convinced - horrific as the consequences of those inaccuracies may have been.

So if the new york times comes out tomorrow and says it has found evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iran and the country goes to war, will you believe them?

It does not matter if the nyt is usually factful. If they can be subverted by powerful interests to push an agenda, they are not trustworthy.

OP also contains: "Investigating facts and reporting them clearly is a solved problem."

I rest my case.