[taligent]

I am well aware of Judy Miller and the many other occasions where their work has been dreadful. But we are talking about a paper that has been around 150+ years.

My point was that they aren't the type of paper who writes flamebait articles just to get more online hits.

[rhizome]

The Judy Miller incidents directly refute your assertion that they don't deal in controversies (and arguably gossip). Arguing that they don't do those things at all, except when they do, isn't very convincing, and your conclusion is a non-sequitur at any rate. "Many other occasions!"

[grecy]

In the first paragraph you acknowledge there have been "many occasions" of "dreadful" reporting.

In the second paragraph you state they are not a bad paper.

You are very confused.