But it's a different problem than the one where people literally completely make up click bait articles and present them as news. Not hastily written, fact light articles about real events, articles about things that simply never happened.
We do ourselves a favor when we treat them as separate issues.
Also, being a faithful transmitter of the government line is not something to aspire to. Everything Pravda ever published was true insofar as it was the official line of the government of the USSR. If the NYT is the Pravda of the USA then I think we might just be better off with PatriotTruth2016.com.
The point is that "fake news" hit the lexicon based on the completely made up bullshit and now people are confusing the issue by trying to broaden it out to include poor journalism. We have the words to talk about them separately, I'm not going to give up trying to get people to do that just yet.
What about "I am a NYT reader and I read it every day with the hopes to tell me who is a better candidate" and I read it, diligently, not knowing that the information is being fed from one candidate? Isn't that lousy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer#Notable_stor...
And like I said, it's totally fine to be concerned with the quality of the content of the NYT. Just don't mix it up with the quality problems at the National Enquirer, which are a different thing entirely.