My NYT Conspiracy Theory.

I was thinking of the reasons that the Times new office building filled up so fast.
As a refresher: the New York Times was involved in an eminent domain abusing ESDC backed scheme that gave the Times private property (against the landowner's will) below market along with some cushy tax breaks (this from the champion of raising taxes for others).

For years, the Times would not mention its involvement with Forest City when reporting (usually favorably) about Atlantic Yards. The editorial board is in favor of eminent domain abuse - the kind which gives private property to private developers - like the New York Times obvious that its bias is a reflection of its self interest.

Even before Jayson Blair and Judith Miller, The New York Times has a long history of being bias - most notoriously it white washed the crimes of the Bolsheviks and actually reported on them favorably. More recently, shoddy journalism aside, its become more overtly agenda driven, especially post 1967 or so when the old Herald Tribune finally went under (how this effected social columns is subject of David Brook's Bobos In Paradise -subject of another post) . Concerning the Time's bias:

In summer 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote a piece on the Times' alleged liberal bias.^[30] He concluded that the Times did have a liberal bias in coverage of certain social issues, gay marriage being the example he used. He claimed that this bias reflected the paper's cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City.

So if bias arises naturally from its surroundings, can't all those firms sharing the same building (and paying rent to) the New York Times expect the same favoritism. In some ways buying a lease must be like buying a full page ad....or a few column inches of op-ed.