I did not want to imply it's not a problem, but to highlight how untrustworthy the New York Times was, and still is. Compare this with their coverage of a diff

I did not want to imply it's not a problem, but to highlight how untrustworthy the New York Times was, and still is. Compare this with their coverage of a different revelation of state secrets: the US pressuring the UK to sell out their healthcare in the UK-US trade negotiations. They focus entirely on how it's "associated with a Russian disinformation campaign", with a tiny little addendum that "the leaks seem accurate". They like to present themselves as trustworthy and neutral, and indeed their coverage is very accurate. But their selection of stories to cover, and angles to cover them from, hides a tremendous bias (which doesn't neatly map to US party lines, as the examples I gave illustrate).