You are much too kind to the Times. They know exactly what they are doing. They have an agenda and not one word appears in the Times that does not advance that agenda.
Yes as the old saying goes, “all the news that fits the tint.”
Pink, no red.
“All the news that fits, we print.”
It must be said the The Feed’s reporting on the anti-Israeli demonstrations in Europe suffered from the same problem. As I wrote previously, the percentage of the population opposed to Israel almost exactly matches the percentage of Muslims in those countries. It seems blindingly obvious that they are Muslims first and foremost.
“The problem with the NYT revealed here isn’t that the paper has some biases. Rather, it’s that, in this case at least, it has failed its readers by suppressing important news.”
I don’t understand this statement.  Isn’t the suppression a direct result of the bias even if you buy the explanation that this was all quite unintentional?  If you have a problem with the suppression you should have a problem with the bias.  And what will be the reaction when the NYT is confronted with their bias?  They will likely deny there is a problem or even more likely you will be greeted with the sound of crickets.
whenever these issues come up , i think the question people should ask is “why trust anything else they say?”
Maybe my expectations of the NYT are too low but I was surprised they even mentioned that the perpetrators were Pakistani rather than “Asians” or even just “men from the north of England”.
Calling these rapist dudes from the subcontinent “Asian” is pretty insulting to Asians.
I agree with all of the previous commentors here.
“The problem with the NYT revealed here isn’t that the paper has some biases. Rather, it’s that, in this case at least, it has failed its readers by suppressing important news.” In this case???? Good heavens they have been editing news to their view of the world forever. 20 years ago there were few sources to double check them. Now their biases, evasions, and political correctness is obvious to see. But they do not care. They are appealing to a particular group of people. They are not providing news, they are providing editorial commentary in their ill disguised role as the organ of the left wing of the Democratic party.
The NYT consistently omits key facts in stories (the simplest example is the omission of the party when a Democrat has done something illegal or covering the party in the last sentence of the article–compared to identifying the party in the first sentence or headline when a Republican does a similar action). It also refuses to cover stories counter to the facts the Progressives want Americans to know. Specific examples include the scarcity of facts involving the real impact of Obamacare on Americans. As early as June 2010, the Administration was indicating in the Federal Register that massive numbers of Americans would lose their existing healthcare plans. They insisted Benghazi was a non-story. They limit the coverage of the Congressional investigation of the IRS’s abuse of Conservative and Jewish Americans by both omission and slanting articles. The NYT serves as Pravda for the Progressives.
The NYT has long since given up on being a newspaper. It is settling for being a partisan rag. Then they wonder why circulation is down.