Given the actual trajectory of the NY Times' reporting over the last few years, I don't share your interpretation of what Baquet is saying. The trends pointed o

Given the actual trajectory of the NY Times' reporting over the last few years, I don't share your interpretation of what Baquet is saying. The trends pointed out by Zach Goldberg (which I linked to above) are really striking, though not surprising to people who have read the Times for a while. The 1619 Project, which the Times presented as its flagship project last year (and which Baquet discusses in the transcript), is a case in point. The really wild historical claims they made, and then the way they dismissed a pretty impressive group of historians (Gordon Wood, James McPherso, Sean Wilentz ... these are really major figures in the historical profession) who asked for corrections, while at the same time hiding the fact that their own fact checker had asked for the very same correction, and finally the way the lead author of the project attacked the historians on social media - the whole thing was really shocking. That's not how the NY Times is supposed to behave. To me, it signaled that they really didn't care about accuracy - this was their big statement, it was selling well, and they weren't going to let a few historians spoil it for them.