Regarding the Times' decision to run this article, I wonder how much of it was based upon "hey, polling is kind of goofy" and how much of was "look! Here's another way we can show that Trump isn't really resonating with voters!".
This is what your parent comment was referring to.
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.
All are biased knowingly. We don't live in utopia, newspapers/media are paid enterprises.
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.
(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)
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.
There's nothing at all wrong with this article in a vacuum, but there does appear to be a bias in article selection. (Although I suppose that some of that must also be simply because 'Trump' sells newspapers (or clicks or what have you.))
Anyway, the story turns out to be a great example about survey design tradeoffs.
This post had an additional benefit: I've been able to observed the votes for my comments go up and down like a roller coaster for the past hour, as the readers of HN apply their own biases. Rather interesting, especially as the number of actual responses is relatively small.
What can we learn about HN's user base from the ultimate comment score, I wonder?
Note my first post. I intentionally left it open-ended to spark discussion. In an election cycle where online propaganda and sockpuppetry have been confirmed, I don't think my question is in the same league as those posed by flat-earthers or 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
As for the motivation, as a purveyor of facts I have to imagine that the NYT is frustrated at Trump's complete disregard for them, and his disregard of polling is a big part of that.