From the NYT Company's "Guidelines on Integrity" [1]:
"... it is imperative that The Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to insure that we do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns. This means that staff members should be vigilant in avoiding any activity that might pose an actual or apparent conflict of interest and thus threaten the newspaper's ethical standing. And it also means that the journalism we practice daily must be beyond reproach."
Shouldn't that be "ensure" rather than "insure"? You would expect better English, especially on the integrity guidelines page, from a highly regarded news publication like the New York Times.
The New York Times is not some Murdoch trashy paper that deals with gossip and controversy.
The integrity of their work is important because that is what is keeping the paper alive
whilst the others are falling by the way side. Maybe you should actually try reading it sometime.
Correction: For the NYT's business, their reputation for integrity is what's important, not the actual integrity of their work. For example, it could be better (or just safer) for that reputation to make up a story that agrees with the conventional wisdom than to tell an unexpected truth that does not.
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.
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!"
Why do you assume that?
His job was to attract readership and hits for the NYT. Nothing does that better than controversy.