I think we would be naive to assume anything has improved in the past century.
What a naive assumption.
For example, an article in 2003 pre-invasion skeptical of the WMD claim
An article in 2016 putting the email server in context or comparing it to Trump's own level of scandal
An article this year critical of Sam Bankman Fried
A single article positive on tech in past few years since their editorial position change?
An article from 2020 suggesting immunity might not be permanent for most?
Matt Yglesias deleted his tweet, but he basically said the NYT had a well known inside journalism policy of "never say anything positive about big tech co's": https://twitter.com/kelseytuoc/status/1588231892792328192
“ Some of The Times's coverage in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq was credulous; much of it was inappropriately italicized by lavish front-page display and heavy-breathing headlines; and several fine articles by David Johnston, James Risen and others that provided perspective or challenged information in the faulty stories were played as quietly as a lullaby. Especially notable among these was Risen's ''C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports,'' which was completed several days before the invasion and unaccountably held for a week. It didn't appear until three days after the war's start, and even then was interred on Page B10.‘
Nowadays you can link any story but back then position mattered enormously.
Timing too. A key report after the war matters much less
>but there was still a lot of content that wasn't "on message".
I do not, however, think this is true in the case of the Iraq War. Once we get into quantity rather than mere existence, we have to consider positioning in the case of the print paper. It may as well not have existed given the positioning and delay. The editorial team buried their reporters' work when it didn't agree with their slant
For example, the NYT was very pro the Iraq USD argument
More recently, they kept going on about Clinton's emails, while ignoring much larger security breaches from Trump's side
More recently than that, they kept saying coronavirus reinfections would be impossible
They also have been producing an endless string of anti-tech articles, but pro-crypto articles
In each case they had some clear editorial directive: "Bush good", "Clinton emails bad", "Coronavirus immunity persists (whether natural or vax)" "tech bad" "SBF good, crypto exciting"
You might agree or disagree with these positions and so that effects your reading of what I'm writing. But the point is they had an inflexible position on these issues. By contrast, a paper like the FT or the WSJ or the Washington Post generally tends not to have a monolithic party line on the points above, and would reports points on the issues above with nuance, mentioning evidence in favour or against the positions as it came out.
NYT does have some great articles but they're utterly unreliable if you don't have enough background knowledge of an issue to parse their party line.