New York Times
Those denying the bias are just demonstrating their own bias, or at least lack of observational awareness to everyone who knows anything on the topic. I'm not saying every article or topic is bad, they have an infrequent good or balancing piece in there. But they are consistently wrong (either entirely or in degrees) on every topic that is later exposed as a fake scandal, exaggeration, or someone is revealed to have an agenda. And they are consistently scooped, or get caught ignoring, scandals on the left -- that people later show they had early hints of, or people even exposed to them, and they buried the story, because it didn't fit their agendas. Even their own staff readily admits the bias, sometimes on the record, often only off (some want to keep the charade of "All the News That's Fit to Print", except for that they really don't like).
Here's some examples of admitted bias:
- Liz Spayd (Ombudsman 2016) admits they were biased and did a poor job of balance in the election. 
- Jim Rutenberg (Political Editor) wrote articles in the NYT admitting they were biased with regards to Trump... but it was "their duty" because Trump was mean (politically incorrect). 
- Dean Baquet (executive editor), doubled down on Jim Rutenberg, by agreeing that since their clueless histrionics claimed he was uniquely dishonest (as long as you ignored Clinton, Bush, Al Gore, JFK, FDR, Johnson, Pelosi, Reid, Ted Kennedy, or other Democrats blatant dishonesty), that they had free reign to call Trump a liar, in ways that never applied to liars on the left side of the aisle. Journalistic standards are for PRAVDA or RT, not the NYT. 
- Arthur S. Brisbane (Ombudsman 2012) admits progressive idealism permeates the paper (and others agreed with the observation) 
- Margaret Sullivan (Ombudsman / Public Editor 2012) also admitted the paper had a liberal bias.
- Daniel Okrent (Ombudsman 2004) had said the same thing... only worse, “yes we’re biased left, but it’s because we’re right”. To quote him, “[the op-ed] is thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right”.
- After all their obvious problem was that since all their ombudsmen (Public editors) are telling them there's a problem, the Times solution was to kill the messenger and eliminate the role. Poof, no more bias. (LOL). 
- Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. (the publisher), said it’s not so much as liberal but “urban” bias. But that’s a euphemism for provincial coastal progressivism (which is the same thing).
- Jill Abramson. (executive editor), admitted they're openly anti-Trump (in ways they've only reserved for Republicans like Bush, Reagan, Nixon). And please stop asking her about all the examples of plagiarism in her book.  (NOTE: I borrow stuff, all over these pages. Heck, the link to that plagiarism article was sent to me by a friend. But I do try to source correctly, tell people I'm "borrowing", and I don't pretend that I don't.).
- Frank Bruni. (columnist), defends Jill Abramson's position, by claiming the negative coverage as “the only honest way to cover this President", showing he doesn't know what "honest" or "journalism" means. 
But other than 5 ombudsman, the publisher, executive editor, and multiple writers all admitting they were more a biased propaganda outfit than a News Organizations (e.g. they had more interest in their agenda than telling the whole truth), what do you have? Oh, so much more.
❝ Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching — even when doing the wrong thing is legal. ❞
Well, investigative journalism is finding out what people say, when they think no one else is watching. One of the top organizations still finding out what people say when they think no one is watching, is Jame's O'keefe's Project Veritas. They did a series on the Times titled "American Pravda" (a term for the Times that I and others had used for generations).
- Part 1: Nick Dudich, Audience Strategy Editor for NYT admitted the Times always slants Anti-Trump News to the Front Page, that he openly worked for Obama/Hillary campaign, that Comey was his godfather, that he would never be objective, and other conflicts of interests. [PV 1]
- Part 2: Nick Dudich went further by explaining how he was using friendships and coordination with YouTube (like Earnest Pettie) to manipulate social media to intentionally influence the news. [PV 2]
- NYT Responds by claiming Dudich was only in a junior position, and violated their standards, so this mess should be ignored. [PV 3] Then it appears they fired him for telling the truth and embarassing the Times. [PV 4] Of course I have no problems with firing people with telling lies, but Krugman and other editors are allowed to say if they do that. But telling the truth can be career ending.
- Part 3: Des Shoe, Senior Home Page Editor, Admits a company culture of blatant DNC leaning bias at NYT, and their agenda is to sensationalize anti-Trump rhetoric, because that gets them subscribers. [PV 5]
- Part 4: Todd Gordon, IT Consultant (for 20 years) for The New York Times, Admits a blatant "Fuck Trump" bias at the NYT, and that they hate Trump, and they intentionally treat him unfairly. [PV 6]
Other places noticed the bias as well:
- New York Post has commented on it 
- There were sites dedicated to monitoring the NYT bias... but it became so obvious that they shut it down. It's like reporting that Michael Moore is a fat socialist, it's so obvious that people get bored. 
- Columbia journalism school case study on bias at the NYT:
- Anyone with a clue about economics has mocked Paul Krugman, their economics spokesperson. There's whole sites dedicated to his biases and hypocrisy -- flipping 180° on his positions, depending on if the President has a (d) or (r) after their name. But he's the top of the iceberg.
- Their positions on the NRA, Race, Consistency across administrations. You can predict how the NYT will respond to a current event by asking what the DNC position is, and how they would spin it, then reading that position in the NYT. 
- Others point out this trick where they always mention party affiliation is there's a Republican involved in a scandal, but Democrats are outliers and party affiliation is never worthy of mention.
- Paul Krugman that this leftist anti-economist represents the paper on all things economic, screams hyper-partisan douchebaggery.
This isn't new, the NYT often sympathized with Anti-Americanism and false narratives. FakeNews (Junk News or yellow journalism) is when legitimate stories or facts are suppressed, journalistic standards aren't adhered to, half truths are told, or a narrative spun to where the story becomes misleading or false. Think: manufactured crises, hoaxes, clickbait (sensational teasers/headlines with buried facts), bias or selective fact-checking, anonymous or paid sources, minor stories obscuring more significant news, delaying or ignoring newsworthy events, are all forms of FakeNews. Most retractions or corrections are evidence of shoddy standards and/or editorial bias creating FakeNews. Read about: FakeNews NYT: 69 items
- And in general, an Anti-military position, combined with anti-Iraq War stories were always big news (while anything that showed justification, like Oil for Weapons, torture by the baathists, or other things were minimized). Code Pink was celebrated when GWB was in office, and never ever reported on again once Obama (the drone strikingest Peace Prize Holder in history).
- Their support and discounted advertising for anti-tolerance Soros fronts like MoveOn, Black Lives Matters, Occupy Wall Street.
- Even when the Boston Marathon Bombing happened, the NYT was out there speculating it must have been those evil right wingers again... and the palpable disappointment, and apologist position (for the bombers), when it turned out to be muslim refugees. . But get one fanatic on the other side that has no ties to anyone (like Dylan Roof) and they play it off as institutional problems within the mainstream right.
- They protect liberals and got caught spiking the John Edwards scandal story, and got scooped by their less biased (and investigative superior) competitor: the National Enquirer. Or they did the same with Harvey Weinstein.
- They got caught suppressing stories like Benghazi, IRS Scandal, Wikileaks on topics they didn't want to touch
- While they got way ahead of the truth on stories like Trump Russia connection, because it fit their political agenda
- Look at them on Climate Scarism (no credibility left) : https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/new-york-times-shifts-towards-extreme-climate-fraud/
The consequence of all that obvious bias, is that they have they crashed in trustability... and they destroyed trust in the media (or are at least contributors to the problem), and brought the whole industry down. .
The question is if 75%+ of people out there, don't trust the Newspapers, then don't you think they might be doing something wrong? And don't you think there's something wrong with the other 25%? (That just happen to be strongly liberal/democrat)? If you filter out the partisans and just look at the informed, trust in the New York Times is even lower.
Since College Graduates have less trust than the less educated, so their narrative that it's just the uneducated conservatives that don't trust them is backwards. The more you do research, and fact check them, you're less likely to trust them in the future.
When you track subscription rates over the decades, they've plummeted. (Though there's been a small Trump spike amongst the far left). More and more people are wising up to not reading partisan propaganda rags to get "news". 
They really want to program into their readership that there's two classes of people: your betters and the hoi polloi (the rest of us): the ones that don't have the lavish weddings, have ungodly sense of fashion or trends. In the rest of the nation, man buns and perfectly coifed beards and plaid shirts on a guy faux-lumberjack that has a list of his favorite "products" for hair and body, but can't work an axe or saw, is something to be mocked. In NYT it's something to be celebrated like fake Boobs in Hollywood.
But they still win more awards than other papers?
Yes, far lefties give other far lefties participation trophies, that doesn't mean they're any good, it means that they say things other far left organizations want to hear. Look through the list of Pulitzer Prize winners for conservatives. There's a handful in there, but it's about 10:1 towards lefties. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for most drone bombings of any other President.