Ah, the NYT that helped justify the US invasion of Iraq based on falsehoods? That NYT?
Edit: Explanation - the "I subscribe to the NYT" as a pat response to funding news sources puts far too much power in the NYT's hands, and they've proven to be less than trustworthy in the past.
I can't say if the NYT are villains or not, but if they are, you might have better luck convincing people if your only data point wasn't from literally decades ago
In defense of that point - it is probably fair to blame that missreporting for thousands of deaths - not all the deaths of the Iraq War, but a big chunk of them. Don't forget that contemporarily you had an immense amount of well founded skepticism about the true cause of the war which turned out to be quite accurate in retrospect but was decried as unpatriotic at the time. The Iraq War is the first time I personally experience news comedy being a more reliable source than traditional media.
In defense of the NYT, vetting sources is hard and they publish a whole lot of good content.
Too bad the consequences of that "data point" are still so profound that people are still dying daily in that region directly because of that war. When do you think we can just forget about the kind of war mongering the NYT pushed ?
Has the NYT changed anything concretely since then? Because going by the way they still seem completely addicted to "anonymous sources in the intelligence community" it sure doesn't seem like they have learnt their lesson.
Edit: Explanation - the "I subscribe to the NYT" as a pat response to funding news sources puts far too much power in the NYT's hands, and they've proven to be less than trustworthy in the past.