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.
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:
- Trump:Animal-gate - Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims complained about the violent gang known as MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha), and Trump replied to that with "These aren't people. These are animals." So the NYT and other far-left Press outlets reported this as Trump said illegal immigrants are animals (and removed the context). It was a stellar example of FakeNews and far-left bias.
- Sarah Jeong - Sarah Jeong is a racist man-hating anti-cop troll with an advanced degree in Grievance Studies, so naturally she was hired as an technology editor at NYT. Not that she has a clue about technology (her pedigree is in Social Media). When people figured out that she's done hundreds of sexist and racist tweets, and complained, the NYT says, "it's OK because she was counter-trolling". (a) They're lying, you can walk her tweets and find plenty that she started (b) they miss the point that almost everyone accused of racism was responding to someone else who attacked them first. This is all fancy wording for saying, "But they did it first", and being wrong about it.
- 2019.02.05 SOTU - The State of the Union speech was a little late (thanks to Nancy's shutdown), but it got delivered. Trump took the high road, Nancy/Dems took the lower one. Trump got a 76% approval, and higher ratings that 2018 or Obama, on a longer and deeper speech . But FakeNews NBC called it a "Theater of the Absurd". And the Fake FactCheckers at NYT, Politico, NPR and WaPo all proved their bias in their counter-factuals.
- 2019.02.01 Va. Gov Ralph Northam - Poor Ralph, the Democrat Governor for Virginia, got caught dressing up for Halloween in blackface (1984). Of course CNN reported him as a Republican, but like many racist politicians, he is devoutly Democrat. The NYT tried to spin it as "Dark Makeup", as if his smokey eye got out of control. So long Ralph, we hardly knew ya.
- 2019.01.27 Learn to Code - ❄️ The left is angry because after the Obama administrations anti-business/anti-coal policies put many (10's of thousands) out of work, the reply by media outlets like NPR, Wired, NYT against the cries of anguish was, "Learn to Code" (the meme trended starting in 2011-2015). Implying lifetime coal miners or manufacturers targeted by the lefts policies, could just get retrained, and get new jobs in the tech sector. Well, last week, massive layoffs hit HuffPo, BuzzFeed, and Gannett News, hitting a small fraction as many workers as under Obama. And since turn-about is fair-play, some reflect the "Learn to code" information right back at the newly unemployed's cries of how life is unfair. The left had a melt-down calling their own message a hate meme (as did Twitter), but only when their sentiments were directed back at them. "How insensitive and cruel". Ya think?! If they were self-aware, they'd be getting a very important life-lesson from this, but instead they're too busy banning things that hurt their feelings to learn.
- 2019.01.20 Covington Catholic High School - The New York Times published an article “Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Mob Native American Elder at Indigenous People’s March,” and many other outlets (CNN, WaPo, etc), piled on without verifying. OrangeMan is so bad, that just wearing his hat makes you a racist. Only, the details leaked out that it was the Catholic teens minding their own business (on a class trip) when the Native American demonstrator/activist (Nathan Phillips: not a Vietnam War Veteran as WaPo and other claimed) marched up, beat drums, push into center of student group, call teens names, and then accused the kids of surrounding him and saying racist things, all false.
- 2019.01.17 Impeachment - Buzzfeed released an article that said Trump had ordered his Attorney (Michael Cohen) to lie to investigators, which set off the Democrats impeachment Tourettes again. ("Get the noose!") Nevermind that: it was implausible, from an unreliable author and publication, with anonymous sources, and made no sense -- the left and their media was all over it, and Congress was already demanding an investigations: which forced Mueller to release an unprecedented statement (during an investigation), that said the story was bullshit. And the left-press was crestfallen over the truth.
- 2018.08 Mollie Tibbetts - A University of Iowa student disappeared and is found murdered by Cristhian Rivera a repeat felon illegal alien on, while jogging near her home in Brooklyn, Iowa. Since this doesn't fit the lefts false narrative that there are no deplorable illegals, CNN and other outlets ignore the story for many days and only covered it by spinning that the only reason FoxNews or the right cares is because she's white, or later that the problem was 'Toxic Masculinity'. NYT spun it other than murder, poor Rivera was 'A very good person, a simple guy with no vices', and blamed Trump for seizing on the murder for Political Gain (like they had done by suppressing the story).
- 2018.07.12 Kavanaugh or RBG - NYT had a snotty tone when intro'ing Brett Kavanaugh's and his record of "diversity". They mentioning the Women, and omitted the other minorities: 6 Asian Americans, 5 African American, and 2 Hispanics. They also omitted that Nefarious RBG has a far worse record for diversity, as that's the bar they would compare everyone to.
- 2018.06.21 Immigration Girl - Time Magazine never ran a cover article complaining about immigrant abuse during Obama, when this was happening more widely. But they photoshopped a FakeNews picture on their cover (and worse article) with Trump looking down callously on a girl that was crying and being separated from her mother. The context of the original makes it worse. American outlets (NYT, WaPo, etc) don't fact check their own kind, so it was the DailyMail that broke the fraud.
- 2018.03 Tax Correction - In a surprise to no one, the NYT opposes tax cuts and allowing people to keep more of their hard earned money. So they tried to torpedo the Trump tax cuts by vilified it with a long tale about Samuel and Felicity Taxpayer. Doing their taxes for them, they concluded they'd owe an additional $3,896 under the new law. The WSJ did them and explained they'd actually save $43. The Times added a small footnote to correct it (if you read the fine print)... then a tax professor at the University of Chicago pointed out the WSJ forgot to get their dependent children tax credit and were owed another $1,500 for their dependent children. (They still haven't corrected for that). So the NYT was only off by >$5,439 dollars.
- 2017.05.25 NATO - Trump criticized NATO (as he has during his campaign) for bearing the brunt of NATO costs (true), and intimidates them into living up to their obligations and coming up with more money. The leftists, their Press and their fact checkers all pretend this is end of days and proof that:
- Demanding more defense spending (against Russia) makes him a puppet of Russia.
- That him claiming the U.S. pays 70-90% of NATO is a lie. It's true... depending on what you mean.
- He "shoved" Montenegro Prime Minister.
- That he's alienating our allies and going to break up NATO.
- A year+ later, the head of NATO admits that his tough talk got NATO contributions up by over $100B, and it is stronger than ever, thanks to Trump.
- 2017.05.25 Headline Sensationalism - Burying the lede is an old time propaganda trick: a headline that says one thing, "JARED KUSHNER NOW A FOCUS IN RUSSIA INVESTIGATION"... wow, that's bad. Then bury plausible deniability in the 5th Paragraph: "[WaPo] has NOT been told that Kushner is a target — or the central focus — of the investigation, and he has NOT been accused of any wrongdoing." <- you just contradicted what you lead your readers to believe. That's the definition of FakeNews. Especially for readers that stop at the headline, or can't see the truth past the paywall! (The NYT and NPR did it as well).
- 2017.05 James Comey Firing - For 6 months the media and Democrats had demanded the firing of James Comey. Trump waited until an FBI report cited evidence of gross misconduct, and then the AG fired Comey after consulting with Trump. The Democrats and their Media (NYT, WaPo, Politico, CNN, MSNBC), switched sides and screamed that this was illegal, obstruction of justice, proof of Russia collusion, and other things that were all later debunked.
- 2017.01.10 Fake Dossier - Most media outlets (besides BuzzFeed) avoided the salacious Steele (Pee Pee) Dossier. But once it ran, plenty (NYT, CNN/Evan Perez, MSNBC, NBC, etc), republished it and/or jumped on board to talk about it, and not refute its abusrdity, or clarify its provenance as a dirty/corrupt election trick (created by the DNC) and used to get illegal warrants and undermine our democracy. Instead CNN/BuzzFeed used it to infer that Trump had Russian ties (collusion), or was compromised and other FakeNews.
- 2017 Republicans funded the Dossier - If you heard that Republicans funded the Steele "Pee Pee" Dossier, you're a victim of FakeNews. Many Democrat operatives are guilty of repeating the lie: New York Magazine (Jonathan Chait), CNN (Brian Fallon), MSNBC’s (Velshi & Ruhle and Rachel Maddow), NBC (Christina Ginn), AP, New York Times, even James Comey. AP issued a correction, NYT clarified in later articles, but most others let the lie/confusion stand, or underplayed the truth: that it was bought and paid for by the DNC and Hillary campaign, and used to get illegal warrants and put a paid spy in the Trump campaign.
- 2017 - 17 Intelligence Agencies - The Hillary Campaign Talking Point was that "17 intelligence agencies" agreed that Russians had hacked the election. The NYT printed it and CNN repeated it for years. James Clapper admitted in front of congress that was bullshit and that he only had 3 (or 4) agencies under his purview, and that 2 of them had disagreed until pressured. CNN repeated it long after it was debunked, and never retracted or corrected the record, which is why their viewers still think it's true. NYT and others at least offered corrected versions later.
- 2016- Russia Trump-Collusion FakeNews Fiasco - 🔥 CNN, NYT, WaPo, MSNBC and all the left leaning media has been promoting this FakeNews Fraud that there was Trump-Russia Collusion, that collusion is a crime (it isn't or Carter, Kennedy, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama would all be in prison).
- The FBI/CIA and finally James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the New York Times (and other reports) that accused Trump associates of “repeated contacts with Russian intelligence” was “almost entirely wrong" or “just dead wrong". There's no evidence of Trump collusion. For over a year the media still reports/misreports the Russian collusion: CNN and others still quoting from the debunked NYT report.
- While the FakeNews was harping on the issue for a year, the only real evidence of collusion was of the Hillary campaign and DNC paying for the Fake Dossier (what real collusion looks like), the FakeNews outlets ignored it (lie of omission).
- Finally, it ended with 3 of CNN's reporters getting fired. But no apology or correction issued for the prior year of FakeNews.
- 2016 Hating Trump - The NYT despises Trump as much as they loved and wrote puff-pieces about Obama. They compare Trump to Manson (a far left hippie trying to start a race war), or Hitler (a far left Socialist), or worse, in supposed News articles. They got caught inventing stories like "Pence is going to run against Trump in 2020" -- which Pence called "Laughably Absurd". Their political editor, and many lower editors openly or got tricked into admitting their bias.
- 2015.12.13 NYT FakeNews about Guns - There was another anti-gun hit-piece in NYT, where they gave up all semblance of journalism and integrity, and decided to turn over their editorial pages to founder of UT Students Against Guns on Campus (with no common sense or rebuttals allowed, as usual). The lies of omission make you dumber for reading the article, as you'll come out less informed and more confident of the opposite (like Progressives on most issues they know nothing about). And then some wonder why the informed on topics mock the NYT as a caricature of what Journalism is supposed to be?
- 2015.12.05 NYT Gun Editorial - The NYT embarassing editorial on guns, shows what's wrong with the paper. They either don't have fact checkers, or count on their readers to either not know the truth, or not care. Bad facts, and one side of the story is propaganda (FakeNews), not journalism.
- 2011 Gabby Giffords - Incompetence is their best Defense - The NYT charged Sarah Palin/Tea Party with being responsible for Gabby Giffords shooting in 2011, because she once ran a campaign flyer that had crosshairs of various weak districts (including hers), and a conservative loon had obviously followed their suggestion. The Democrats had of course done the same exact thing to Republican districts (or used targets), but the Times doesn't let moral consistency get in the way of slander piece. Everything was wrong in their assumptions: the shooter was an atheist, loved John Kerry and the communist manifesto, hated Bush, and wasn't aware of the flyer. They were forced to publish retractions/corrections on all that in their News Pages, but continued to write/allow articles blaming Palin in their Editorials, long after those corrections were issued in their own paper. Palin sued, and their defense was that they were negligent but not malicious, and the Judge sided with them. The NYT can't help it if their editors and fact checkers don't read their own Newspaper or retractions, nor be expected to know the basic facts before writing on them. Seriously.
- 2009.07.15 Eugenics support - Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine: “Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade] was decided... there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” The comment, which bizarrely elicited no follow-up from interviewer Bazelon or any further coverage from the New York Times — or any other major news outlet — was in the context of Medicaid funding for abortion. (FakeNews is not reporting both sides equally).
- 2005- Uranium One Payola -
- In 2005 Canadian billionaire Frank Giustra (head of UrAsia Energy and long time Clinton friend) and Bill Clinton go to Uranium rich Kazakhstan to help with a non-existent humanitarian "HIV/AIDS" crisis. A few days later, Hillary Clinton (Senator and member of Senate Armed Services Committee), threatens to withhold aid to Kazakhstan until a UrAsia mining deal goes forward. One day later Kazatomprom (the atomic energy agency for Khazakhstan) awards the contract to UrAsia making them the world’s largest uranium mining producer. 6 months later Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation. Nothing suspicious there.
- Then the head of Kazatomprom (Mukhtar Dzhkishev), Bill Clinton and Frank Giustra meet at Bill's Chappaqua residence to work out a new deal: Uranium One buys UrAsia Energy Ltd for $3.1 billion in a reverse merger... and Giustra announces a commitment to donate $100 million + half future profits to the Clinton Foundation ($145 million total to the Clintons). Still nothing concerning to the leftist media.
- Then a 3rd deal in 2009, when Rosatom (Russia's State Atomic Energy Corporation), wants to secure a 17% ownership stake in Uranium One, marking the beginning of an aggressive campaign to control the U.S. uranium market. Kazatomprom balks (not wanting Russia to control their assets), and Putin pressures the Kazakhstan government to arrest head of Kazatomprom (former Clinton guest Mukhtar Dzhkishev) on Uranium One deal corruption charges, at the same time that Clinton's State Department threatens to withhold financial aid to Kazakhstan if the deal doesn't go through. Which results in the Rosatom purchase proceeding quickly. Over the rest of 2009, Hillary Clinton intervenes on multiple other occasions on behalf of Uranium One/Rosatom in favor of the sale of U.S. uranium assets. And in 2010 Bill Clinton collects $500,000 for a one-hour speech he delivered in Moscow, for a Kremlin-controlled investment bank (Renaissance Capital) populated by former Russian intelligence agents with close ties to Putin. And like that, half of projected American uranium production was transferred to a private company controlled by the Russian State Nuclear Agency. During all this time, CNN, NYT and other FakeNews outlets have been arguing against transparency and journalism, burying the story, and calling it all a crazy right wing conspiracy. Nothing to see here.
- 2002 Halliburton - The NYT invented this idea that Halliburton is an “evil conspiracy” that George W and Dick Cheney conspired to pay off a company for cheating us, while ignoring the corruption of their favorite Presidents; FDR, Bill Clinton, Johnson, JFK, Nixon and so on. Their FakeNews claims lead to investigations, with no evidence of corruption or payoffs, yet the myth persists in the minds of their rubes (readers).
- 1980 Hating Reagan - The NYT hated Reagan for calling the USSR the "Evil Empire" and speaking truth to power (and inspiring to dissidents like Natan Sharansky). Reporters like Anthony Lewis called him primitive, simplistic and crude. Shhh, don't mention the Gulags and mass murder. The Times invented/promoted false narratives about Reagan being a racist, stupid, or hating gays (despite evidence to the contrary).
- 1959 Castro - Always fans of communists, the Times has been a Castro apologist from the get go. Hard hitting reporting like, "Extremists have no place in the Cuban revolution, Premier Fidel Castro said in a television interview". They started by supporting his claims that he was "not a communist" and had no influence in his regime. Now they admit it, but talk up the "good side" of Communism; other than the murder/elimination of liberty, everyone is more equally oppressed.
- 1946 Maoism - The NYT was also Rampant fans of Maoism, while 10's of millions were getting mass murdered, or cultural revolutions (oppression of conservatives), the NYT was explaining how much better things were under the Chinese Communists. Even in 2017 they're tweeting out Maoist images and explaining, "Communist revolution taught Chinese women to dream big".
- 1939 Hitler Apologist - You can't make this stuff up. The NYT and other progressive institutions loved and respected National Socialism, it aligned well with the New Deal, and leftist central planning, tax and spend ideology. The Nazi's were also saying great things about FDR, and copying the DNC on laws for segregation and the like, since they aligned on so many things.
- 1938, 1947 Cheeseburgers are just a fad - in 1938 and 1947 they were sure that Cheeseburgers were a west coast fad. Not necessarily a sign of bias, but one of not getting trends.
- 1929 Russian Collusion - While the Ukrainian Gennoacide is going on, Walter Duranty (top NYT reporter on Russia) was not only being a Stalin Apologist and covering it up, but attacking other journalists for trying to expose it. And winning awards for helping the Soviets exterminate political threats via one of the greatest famines in the world. (The Paul Krugman of his day).
- 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.
- Liz Spayd:
- Jim Rutenberg on admitted bias against Trump:
- Dean Baquet lowers standards for NYT:
- Arthur Brisbane admits progressive bias:
- Margaret Sullivan admits bias:
- Daniel Okrent 2004 on their bias:
- Killing the messenger:
- Jill Abramson:
- Jill "the Plagiarist" Abramson:
- Frank Bruni: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ryan-foley/2019/01/07/nyts-bruni-negative-coverage-only-honest-way-cover-president
- NYPost on Times Bias:
- Times Watch:
- Columbia on NYT Bias:
- Examples of NYT DNC Party Platform positions:
- Lying about crowd size in a tweet, not only biased by stupid: http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/20/fake-news-new-england-patriots-fact-checked-new-york-times/
- Party Affiliation: * http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/09/05/new-york-times-slammed-for-stealth-editing-article-to-add-this-critical-detail/
- Poor terrorists: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/19/new-york-times-sympathy-for-the-devil/
- Crashing trust in NYT and Newsprint in general:
- How NYT killed Journalistic Standards: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/2016-election-demise-journalistic-standards/
- Telling lies won't get you fired at the NYT, but telling the Truth will: http://projectveritas.com/video/okeefe-did-nyt-fire-audience-strategy-editor-nick-dudich/