here is the problem with the NYT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies you'll

here is the problem with the NYT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies you'll find that their bias is toward whatever is convenient for the US state department at the time. generally speaking, they can't be trusted because they're on a leash. that's not to say that any individual story is factually incorrect so much as the stories they're allowed to work on and publish are kept within a certain narrow range. they sit on stories when told to. they don't write certain stories because it'd make their masters mad. they don't pick up stories which might invalidate their formerly expressed views. they are neutered in a dozen different ways. you'll also find that their op/eds are profoundly mediocre and "reasonable" reiterations of status quo thought that aren't particularly well contextualized or built to withstand critical responses. they never rock the boat. they never say anything perceptive. they never take a stand until long after there is a well established "safe" stand to take. and even then, it's a weak stand. as far as "just the facts" goes, they're not even that information dense. frequently, the lack of context (not necessarily intentional) is so severe as to be very misleading. you can do worse than the NYT by quite a bit. but it's still a rag. if you want an example of a better media outlet, check out the intercept. it's gone downhill recently, but the difference is palpable: the intercept offers contextualized fact-checked facts that people don't want published.