I did. But then, I actually read the NYTimes.
I don't agree with their politics, but their news reporting is about as good as it gets.
Wow. Not much I can say to that. YIKES!
Contrary to your statement, their news reporting sucks ass. Incredibly one-sided on political issues. Those who counter the liberal spin on a story can be found in the back-pages continuation of a front page story, if they can be found at all.
Their choices of stories which they cover is also incredibly biased. For example, white on black racism stories merit front page or front page of the Metro section at least. Black on white racism is relegated to the NY Post, as it is so trashy and unworthy of their lofty pages.
Even their science reporting can be laughable at Times. Like their front page story about how liquid water had appeared at the north pole for the first time in millenia, because of global warming. Their retraction came after relentless mocking as to the inaccuracy of the contention. That grudging retraction appeared in a tiny little box buried deep within their pages.
They are a once grand news gathering organization that has turned into a collection of political hack trustafarian ivy league journalism school graduates, who presume to know better than everybody else, and let their sheltered world view influence their presentation of the news.
But that's just my opinion. You're free to have your own.
Can you say Jayson Blair? Their "reporting" is mostly editorializing, and at least sometimes it is plagiarized editorializing.
I grew up on the NYT--and went on reading it for years, long after I became a conservative. I finally gave up sometime in 2002, when I realized they'd become such thorough partisan shills that I couldn't even read between the lines any more. Their coverage is exceptionally broad, their writing style is superior----and they lie, and lie, and lie.