Does it matter? The point is that they published an article that is factually accurate. If they were publishing an opinion piece based on such motivations there might be an argument here. But they aren't.
You're completely missing the point. Publications show bias all the time based on what factual information they report (or don't report). Look at CNN.com right. Literally nothing about the new wikileaks that came out today, even in a factual manner. Plenty of opinionated anti-Trump garbage.
This is what your parent comment was referring to.
Either that, or you are the one with bias, and the news outlets you go to and/or the people you associate with feed into that bias. You can see just as much bias in the opposite direction on any number of news sites. They're all biased in different ways, some knowingly and some unknowingly.
Individuals are usually even more imperfect than most news outlets when it comes to having limited sources of information and unexamined preconceived notions about things. No one is off the hook for being personally responsible for trying to understand all sides of a debate or being as educated as possible on all sides of an issue. I only say this because I see huge correlations between people complaining about bias in news outlets (regardless of political leanings) and people who don't see just as much bias in their own preferred media inputs.
The interesting thing here, of course, is how many big names in journalism are starting to question whether current (as opposed to, say, 50-60 years ago) standards of "neutral" reporting are really all that neutral, since they've begun to realize that the push to just dispassionately report every side of something led to mainstream media outlets becoming the largest provider of free advertising -- to none other than Trump -- in American political history.
To put it in context: there's a story I've heard once or twice about Walter Cronkite, during the JFK administration. JFK supported a bill to provide funding to the state of Alaska to construct mental health facilities, of which the state had (at the time) none, and a few of the more out-there Republicans who opposed him spun this into a conspiracy theory that JFK was secretly building Soviet-style gulags in Alaska, and would deport all his political enemies there once construction was finished (a sort of precursor to today's allegations the FEMA is a front for (insert Democratic president here)'s secret labor camps for his/her enemies). Cronkite supposedly refused to dignify the allegations with any kind of airtime, knowing that the mere act of mentioning the JFK-labor-camp stuff on a national news broadcast would implicitly legitimize it.
Considering the universe of facts is endless, it seems that it's impossible to report without "bias" then – you necessarily have to make decisions and there is no objective standard to judge stories by.
(and, btw, the leaks have three stories in the "top news" block on the top left, and an above-the-fold story in the politics section right now)
Less than 8 hours later and I don't see it. And 8 hours between my comment and yours. They show it less than a day, but Kim getting robbed has been front page for a week
It does matter. Popularity bias affects how people vote. NYTimes is a fairly liberal media source, and it's incredibly suspicious that this small case has been used to show "hey this bad guy is getting support due to this!" ... why didn't they publish this before?
It's probably roughly in line with the centrist Democrat view (which is also generally pro-war), if you don't look too hard at the prominent columns given to people like David Brooks and Ross Douthat which would drag their aggregate editorializing to the right.
So in common American usage, not liberal. If you're a socialist though, "liberal" would accurately describe the whole Democratic party, who favor somewhat regulated capitalism and mild social liberalism.
