the biggest problem with NYT is they bend over backwards to appear neutral and give all sides the benefit of the doubt. it becomes doublespeak and provides cover for bad faith. for instance today's article on SBF - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/technology/ftx-sam-bankma... . it's an embarrassment to let him call looting client funds 'a margin position' without hard pushback.

but in the NYT they distinguish fact from opinion, and take reasonable steps to verify the stuff they print as fact. so even if they don't discount what SBF says as they should and draw the appropriate conclusions, a critical reader can. (even if it's while they are yelling at the screen)

so they are not going to print something like the Sequoia garbage that is completely one-sided, with technical absurdities and factual inaccuracies (and they will edit and copy-edit properly).

people say the NYT is 'biased' but I think that accusation is misguided. Of course they have a point of view (like, democracy and government are usually good good). the word 'bias' presumes the existence of some unbiased reference frame like 19th century ether theory. many people who call things 'biased' are just announcing, my own point of view is the one that must be privileged.

the question is not, do they have a point of view, but what is the point of view, is it transparent, do they check facts and distinguish between fact and opinion and dig regardless of who benefits.

the crap media is this stuff that prints bogus facts, is one-sided and self-serving, doesn't distinguish between fact and opinion.

and yes, it's important to note that Musk and other people want to control the narrative with their own crap media like this, and a Twitter zone flooded with BS.