Most educated people believe that premier news outlets are inherently trustworthy. And this is healthy, in a way.
No it's not. The NYTimes engages in journalism, which is a particular way of gathering and presenting facts. Which to say, among other things, they rely on publicly available information, gathering facts on the ground and sources. Sources are people with information, often but not always powerful people. They check facts/claims but according to their viewpoint. Often they're a conduit for the powerful people they like to present their story, sometimes a true story, sometimes not. Which is to say they'll take claims that look like obvious bs and are actually bs stand IF these come from the sources they like and if they can't be clearly and directly be refuted. And smart, powerful people can craft such claims, indeed enhance their power by crafting such things.
I mean, I can see the comments are filled with places the NYtimes got it wrong. I think my link is good for showing the dynamics of how they got it wrong.
"Russian Bounties!!!" and all that jazz[1].
Edit: also should note, the over-the-top claims for "objectivity" of the OP is transparently full-of-shit. Just so you know I know. "Retraction bounties" - NYTimes may have it's problems but that's never how journalism worked.
In my opinion, the biggest problems with sources is that journalists often fail to provide them.
They will often make sure assertions without named sources to back them up. And they will fail to provide citations and links when the source is present on the internet, so you can confirm and verify it.
This is sometimes the case for things like scientific research, where you're just expected to know which specific paper it is they're talking about, or where to look for further information.
Journalists don't provide sources because sources would face retaliation if journalists provided their names. Sometimes this is appropriate if the source is providing information in the public interest and sometimes it's corruption if the source is providing misleading information to benefit themselves. Journalism overall has a long tradition of sometimes benefiting the public and sometimes benefiting those in power - both these help maintain the institution (for good and ill, naturally).
Linking to document on the Internet is a different issue, I think, one I wouldn't comment on.
When a journalist uses an anonymous source, then they are putting their own reputation on the line, rather than that of the source.
Unfortunately, as we've seen, there are no consequences for journalists that manufacture outrage and misleading or outright false facts.
...and so consequently, we've seen many many examples in the last decade of journalists citing "unnamed sources" to deliver "facts" that turn out to be utterly false.
...and so the ultimate issue remains that journalists are rewarded for traffic, not accuracy or truth.
Because your comment, while clearly a joke (that I did enjoy), somewhat insinuated that postmodernism sort of invented the idea of doubting sources and looking for their biases, or at least that's how I perceived it.
I think doubting sources based on their expected motivations and biases is a part of human rationality since time immemorial, and that postmodernism simply applied this way of thinking to some of the areas where it was traditionally not applied, like science and literary analysis.
No it's not. The NYTimes engages in journalism, which is a particular way of gathering and presenting facts. Which to say, among other things, they rely on publicly available information, gathering facts on the ground and sources. Sources are people with information, often but not always powerful people. They check facts/claims but according to their viewpoint. Often they're a conduit for the powerful people they like to present their story, sometimes a true story, sometimes not. Which is to say they'll take claims that look like obvious bs and are actually bs stand IF these come from the sources they like and if they can't be clearly and directly be refuted. And smart, powerful people can craft such claims, indeed enhance their power by crafting such things.
I mean, I can see the comments are filled with places the NYtimes got it wrong. I think my link is good for showing the dynamics of how they got it wrong.
"Russian Bounties!!!" and all that jazz[1].
Edit: also should note, the over-the-top claims for "objectivity" of the OP is transparently full-of-shit. Just so you know I know. "Retraction bounties" - NYTimes may have it's problems but that's never how journalism worked.
[1] https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/10/bounty-tales/