This article appears to be a defense of priesthoods and the traditional media: > But I still have basic trust that something in the New York Times’ non-opinion

This article appears to be a defense of priesthoods and the traditional media: > But I still have basic trust that something in the New York Times’ non-opinion pages is 99% likely to be factually true - probably spun a bit, probably selected from the space of possible news articles because it supports the Times’ agenda, but factually true - in a way I don’t believe for random YouTubers.