Although some individual writers are – the aggregation value of the New York Times is now low enough that you shouldn't use their masthead to learn about the content of the article, or its relationship with reality. The brand name may well drop in value all the way to zero.

What makes me say this? Well, I've been saying that people shouldn't trust The New York Times roughly once every three days for months now, and I think it's pretty clear they aren't interested in meaningfully changing direction to fact-check more stuff.

I could try and locate all the major issues with their behavior (and truly, there are so, so many), but I'd like to share just one that I think ought to be a dealbreaker: spreading safety-critical misinformation during a pandemic on their front page.

Yes, the psychologically healthy thing is to be subject to propaganda telling you to be a afraid of the outdoors. Stay inside, maybe at a nice restaurant, where you can chat in an enclosed space and it's impossible to wear a mask.

If you spread misinformation about a pandemic on your front page, I feel comfortable saying: reading your paper is toxic. You will not get insight from it. You have a moral obligation to stop reading, and to encourage others to stop reading as well. Stopping the pandemic is extremely important.

I hope it's clear how this isn't excused by the old 'they publish so much, they can't get everything right' thing. That was a common enough thing to hear when standards were dropping. This is the front page of the Sunday paper. This is their most direct attempt to communicate with the public, and they've used the opportunity to say, in small print, only true, vague things... but use most of the actual space, and all of the color, is spent trying to mislead you. Fact checking will not help such an organization.