That much is believable.
Unfortunately, we have been there for a very long time, and the New York Times has been in the forefront since the beginning:
“Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda. There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation"
-- Walter Duranty, New York Times writer, for which he received a Pulitzer Prize. The Times has never repudiated his work.
The Washington Post, through its weekly newsrag, Newsweek claimed that Elizabeth Bentley was a fantasist. The New Yorker ridiculed her naming her the "Nutmeg Mata Hari." Despite the fact that her evidence broke three different Soviet spy networks, including the Silvermaster Group, despite its corroboration by Whittaker Chambers, despite its support by the FBI, and despite the fact that she identified several previously unknown code names in Venona, none of these publications has ever retracted their mischaracterization of Bentley, and for those of you who think Internet media is superior, Wikipedia continues to fraudulently maintain that her claims are "controversial."
NO. They aren't.
These are just a couple of examples. Anyone who thinks that The New York Times or any of the "mainstream" newspapers or news magazines or TV media have ever been anything but fiction is a fool.
MRC has been documenting their omissions, misdirection, and outright lies for decades. As soon as there was an American Left, there was a fake news media to support it.
The current brouhaha over "fake news" is nothing more than attempt by thoroughly discredited leftwing chatterboxes to distract from the blatant and disgusting lies they told during the most recent presidential campaign, as if they're superior. Those of us who weren't born yesterday know how their effluent ebbs and flows in every season and inevitably reaches a tidal wave of pure horse manure in the final days of every presidential year.