“ 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, 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