I recall the NYT being a mouthpiece for Bush administration propaganda leading up to the Iraq war. It later came out that they squashed articles which would have cast a critical light on the claim that Iraq had WMD capabilities, in favor of beating the war drum.

Obviously no media outlet is perfect, but yes, corporate media is subject to the influence of monied interests almost by definition. That said, with how easy it is to run ads and hire influencer shills for whatever agenda, social media seems even more malleable if you're willing to spend money. Or, put another way, the financial barrier for creating propaganda is far lower on Facebook than in traditional media.

Good point wrt to financial barrier. IMHO these articles are simply trying to keep those barriers intact and valuable

Just a coincidence that I watched a video today that claimed NYT implied a Youtube vlogger must be paid by CPP. Here's his response https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvvj_3QMGAM&t=234s

I would not say NYT publishes propaganda. They just truly believe their own opinion based on some ideology framework but confused their opinions with solid facts. So they see anything not align with their belief as a propaganda. In other words they seem to be against propaganda.

It's a meta-dishonest which is worse than dishonest which is a form of honest dishonest because many people trust meta-dishonest journalist. There are a lot of such kind of MSM journalists. Don Lemon for example.

It's bad when others do it.

Same how it's ok when the US does it globally, but not when foreign powers do it.