We have different opinions, which is fine. I think the Times a propaganda rag and you think it's the gold standard of reporting. I'm fine with you having whatever opinion you want. Go ahead. I simply disagree and no amount of bloviating without evidence will convince me. They left that headline there to deceive. It's that simple. They do it a lot.
The Times supported Hitler, Stalin, false Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq lie, the absurd 1619 vanity project. Here is a changed headline, btw, so they can do it.
Why has the Times NEVER reported on WTC 7 collapse, for example, though they have been alerted to it many times? Why has this chart never appeared in the Times, even though the data is from the CDC? These are fundamental societal issues. The NYT ignores them. Fraud by omission is still fraud. Considering the import of these stories, to ignore them is to imply they are not newsworthy, like Hunter's laptop, which they repeatedly called Russian disinfo.
Why did REUTERS (and BBC ) report the WTC7 collapse 30 Minutes before it actually happened?... How is that possible at all?... Doesn't that smell for a conspiracy?....
Did you happen to notice the word printed in red, viz., "opinion". News articles in the Times do not represent Times "support". The Times also publishes opinion pieces. In these, support for a cause, political faction, etc. is often indicated. However, unless those opinion pieces are editorials representing the majority position of the shareholders who control the New York Times Company (a publicly traded Company) they do not necessarily represent the position of the NYT Company. Your beginning to come off as a bit of a nut.
By asking these questions you hope to imply that Reuters and BBC actually did this. It's a less skillfully phrased, version of "When did you stop beating your wife."