You might say it is a mouthpiece for the government, but not the political administration; NYT tends to favor the administrative bureaucracy.
I recently listened to an interesting interview on the BBC with the late french spy novel author Gérard de Villiers. One of the things he mentions is that journalists need sources, and to get sources you need to do favors. It's a game of you-say-something-nice-about-me-and-my-gov't-program and I'll give you a scoop. That's why they come off as slobbering the shaft of gov't officals. You don't go interview some department boss and then bad mouth him, b/c you won't get invited next time.
a mouthpiece for the sitting administration in Washington. They were under Bush, they are under Obama
I'm sorry of the NYT doesn't bow to your personal politics but to say its a "mouthpiece" - especially for Bush is more than a stretch of reality.
There were many people that supported Iraq War, from many political persuasions. Some regretted it, some didn't. It doesn't mean they all were Bush's mouthpieces, there is place for genuine agreement even in today's politics.
2. It is not the notion, it is a fact. Widely confirmed by independent sources which you can find by simple Google search or on any "current events" page in any major media outlet.
3. I brought it as an example that appeasing somebody and identifying with somebody is not the same. If you don't like this example, take example of Chamberlain appeasing Germans. I didn't use that because that has a high chance of taking discussion offtopic, but you managed to take it offtopic anyway.
4. The original point was that appeasing and being a mouthpiece is far from being the same. You still did not manage to bring any argument to the contrary. NYT published a lot of things harmful to Bush. It also published a lot of things useful to Bush. Thinking that the same newspaper that published the story of Stellar Wind was parroting Bush doesn't make any sense.
"The Finding: U.S. Engaged in Torture"
which refers to the Front Page story on April 16th that had headline:
"U.S. Practiced Torture After 9/11, Nonpartisan Review Concludes,"
Keller, the executive editor during some of the Bush years, spoke as to why and when "torture" was and wasn't used.
This is more informed then your shouts of "mouthpiece" and I hope it helps:
"The word was freely deployed in editorials and Op-Ed opinions, but in the news pages we described the techniques as “brutal” – upgraded from “harsh.” When the word “torture” appeared, it was qualified by attribution (“according to…” or “widely denounced as…”). Hoyt, as the reader’s ombudsman, heard complaints from “some who think ‘brutal’ is just a timid euphemism for torture” and from readers on the other side “who think ‘brutal’ is too loaded.” The editors (I was one at the time) argued that what constituted torture was still a matter of debate, that this issue was not just linguistic but legal and had not yet been resolved by a court, and that the word was commonly applied to such a range of practices as to be imprecise. We contended that the best approach was to describe the techniques as fully as possible and let readers draw their own conclusions."
"The Guantánamo Stain" (2013)
"It became the embodiment of his dangerous expansion of executive power and the lawless detentions, secret prisons and torture that went along with them. It is now also a reminder of Mr. Obama’s failure to close the prison as he promised when he took office, and of the malicious interference by Congress in any effort to justly try and punish the Guantánamo inmates."
"Sweeping Torture Under the Rug"
"Meanwhile, in Washington, officials still won’t acknowledge Mr. Masri’s kidnapping and torture, which was just one example of President George W. Bush’s “extraordinary rendition program.”"
"Detainee Was Tortured, a Bush Official Confirms"
"A senior Pentagon official in the Bush administration said that interrogators had tortured a Guantánamo detainee."
"'Moderate physical pressure' : The painful lesson Israel learned about torture"
"As the Abu Ghraib torture scandal keeps unfolding, ..."
I don't necessarily agree with your parent's assertion, but do you not remember the NYT beating the drums of war as loud as anyone in the lead up to Iraq?
Lately, I have found the Guardian much more informative.
I think the NYT has come a long way from the paper storied of old.
Also, and I mean this in the most non ad hominem way possible. At what point would you disclose your former and ongoing relationship with the NYT in making a comment like that?
For Obama's time in office, both terms, the NYT has indeed functioned as a de facto press room of the administration.
Isn't it a number of different journalists, all with different opinions?
Not really, no. It's the editor who sets the agenda; often at the bidding of the owners.
1: that happens to be exactly the government line