There's an interesting phenomenon called the "Gell-Mann Amnesia" effect. About how we only see the flaws in modern journalism and punditry when it talks about a

There's an interesting phenomenon called the "Gell-Mann Amnesia" effect. About how we only see the flaws in modern journalism and punditry when it talks about a person, event, or niche that we have personal experience with. https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ Regarding reputation: All media outlets big and small have the mutually beneficial habit of copying each others' work with essentially reposted articles. The uniformity of narrative on various events and topics that come up - the circular referencing called the "media cycle" - bolsters the appearance that the original outlet is generally right on things. Retractions are often printed by the New York Times, and to their credit they are very rigorous in doing so. But it is not on the front page, and only a small fraction of those who read the original pieces or their headlines return to see the retraction. When it comes to online work, silent edits are increasingly common. Luckily there is a tracker to see where those are happening and whether NYT does it more than other outlets: http://newsdiffs.org/ http://newsdiffs.org/