The New York Times has become almost unreadable. Always slanted, now, I believe, because of the obsolescence of newspapers, it has decided to stake its commercial future on becoming entirely a government organ.
It used to be just recently that a reader of the Gray Lady could at least follow developments overseas, for instance the unfolding battlefield of Syria or the coup in Kiev. No longer. Now the paper hopscotches from country to country -- a story about the collapse of the Ghani government in Afghanistan one day, a tiny report on the nightly street protests in Paris the next -- without following one country day after day. The only exception that comes to mind, and this because of the USG's revanchist agenda in South America, is NYT's coverage of Brazil's impeachment circus.
Pakistan is hardly ever reported on. The quality of coverage on the upcoming Brexit vote has been poor, as has the political upheaval underway in Germany. A reader has no idea what is happening in Yemen or Ethiopia or Libya, and very little about what is going in other hot spots, whether Syria, Iraq, the Donbass or southern Turkey; and when it comes to "official enemies" Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela, the news is cartoonishly vile.
The sense I have is that the world's political structure is shaking as if experiencing an enormous earthquake, and the response of The Times is to occlude this occurrence as much as possible -- and this goes without even mentioning the paper's shameless boosterism of Hillary Clinton.