Your fallacy: Appeal to Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies And th

Your fallacy: Appeal to Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies And these are just the examples that we know about and gained enough notoriety to be included in a Wikipedia article. If the NY Times treated itself with the same scrutiny as it treats Uber, we'd know more about how reliable it actually is. Like all other media companies, the NYTimes at the end of the day is made up of humans like you and I and it's entirely possible for them to publish heresay, conjecture, biased opinions, etc. They may have a better track record than most, but they aren't infallible. Even the golden goose occasionally takes a shit. This article is just presenting the conjecture of supposed insiders as facts. That's not news. That's rumor.