[DiogenesKynikos]

In October 2010, the day after WikiLeaks published the Iraq War Logs, the New York Times ran a front-page article that essentially painted Assange as paranoid.[1] Here's the opening:

> Julian Assange moves like a hunted man. In a noisy Ethiopian restaurant in London's rundown Paddington district, he pitches his voice barely above a whisper to foil the Western intelligence agencies he fears.

> He demands that his dwindling number of loyalists use expensive encrypted cellphones and swaps his own as other men change shirts. He checks into hotels under false names, dyes his hair, sleeps on sofas and floors, and uses cash instead of credit cards, often borrowed from friends.

This was the Times' lead article on the person who had just provided them with one of the biggest scoops in the history of the paper.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html

[atmosx]

Wikileaks schooled the entire western world mainstream media by releasing more material than they ever could hope.

I love the NYTimes, I consider them the best there is, but when it comes to US national matters or a specific Wall Street breed of Democrats, they are just as ridiculous as Fox News :-)

[nullc]

Have you ever read NYTimes coverage on a matter where you were personally an expert?

In those cases I personally found their coverage ranged from meh and mildly misleading to extremely poor and outright the opposite of the truth.

Most other big name venues appear to do better.

[atmosx]

Hm, interesting. Can you share specific examples? I reckon that they suffer heavily in the topics I mentioned before for obvious reasons.