First of all, the New York Times public editor acknowledged that Doug corrected his error on FR, whereas they re-reported, but never corrected, the story about the US troops killing Iraqi civilians. So just keep in mind while reading the following that I know FR can be better than the New York Times.
However, considering what is in italics above: Of course we have a way to know, namely, to check with the New York Times, most of whose content is available for free for 7 days on the net.
The underlying problem has to do with a certain kind of patriotism sometimes missing on FR. It is the kind exemplified by our founding fathers when they often (can't find a quote right now) described America's savages as the world's best left of center papers. Yes, the Indians massacred but they didn't rape, generally believed in fair dealing, etc. Well. Along these lines, it is obvious to me that the liberal newspapers of America, particlarly the New York Times and Washington Post, are the world's best. They lie the least. They correct themselves the most. Etc. By contrast, the English language overseas newspapers linked to in FR are far, far sloppier and worse. If people here had the patriotic idea that our bad liberal newspapers are better than their bad liberal newspapers, they wouldn't make the mistake of thinking you can trust an Australian report of what a Timesman wrote.