The sort of quick rule I have for measuring credibility is "how much of a story is it when a reporter or outlet gets something meaningfully wrong?" For the NYT, it's a rather important story, like the Iraq WMDs you mentioned. Which, needless to say, was over 20 years ago.
We'll see what the truth ends up being with time.
¿Por qué no los dos? Access Journalism easily explains both phenomena. Journalists know where their bread is buttered - members of the "deep network of sources" may occasionally call in favors, or drop breadcrumbs leading journalists to a specific, preselected destinations.
A recent HN thread led me down the rabbit-hole that included an observation by some (British) monarchy insider that they'd intentionally leak a story to the press, and the article would include the usual "We have reached out to the royal family for comment" spiel, and yet the entire article is the comment by the royal family. On the other side of the Atlantic, it wasn't too long ago that JD Vance was outed as the unnamed source on a story that the Trump admin subsequently attempted to sue for.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/11/12/politics/alice-huang-us-intel...
Not really relevant,
But the NYT laundered crimes against humanity and covered up the death of 30k children over the last three years. They published dozens of provably fabricated stories to do so. Sorry they dont have weight to their journalism, they are completely beholden to whatever special interest that benefits them.
You're using the "conspiratorial they" (as I like to call it), that "they" failed with the spy allegations so started releasing information about affairs.
And then, to top it off, you play victim and say there are bots scanning the comments and automatically downvoting you.
This also only touches on the potential spy aspect. The largest part of the story is Nvidia seemingly intentionally breaking US trade laws over something that a significant part of the AI industry believes should be treated as dangerous as nuclear weapons.
Conspiracy theories don't have to be wrong or crazy, but what evidence do you have to so confidently claim that yours is correct?
---
I've been following Nvidia for a long time. I've seen online discussions of the company become increasingly corrupted since 2020/2021. The only explanation that's held up for me is that money corrupts, and there are a lot of individual shareholders of Nvidia stock that feel a duty to try and protect their investment. I have no idea if that applies to you, but I'm saying it to give you an idea of the angle I'm reading these threads from. More recently, AI has provided new potential sources of corruption aside from investments. When I see you and the mass of other people in these threads that are presenting these ideas of a conspiracy to take down Jensen Huang for sinister reasons, well... my initial reaction is rather negative.
> This is not a conspiracy theory
> [proceeds to explain carefully organized plot between Anthropic, Rubio and Bessent]
————————
> This is not smuggling
> [proceeds to explain that if destination country is cool with imports then it’s ok to send goods via 3rd country]
————————
> She was not a spy
> [explains what she did and what spies do, same thing]
If people are downvoting you it's because you're spinning conspiracy theories around a topic that a lot of people have personal financial interests in.