The problem is that "the big boys" lack just as much credibility in 2019 as anyone else. The fact that they constantly push government narratives doesn't make them any more credible. Google pushing of the "big boy" outlets is an attempt to make them seem more credible.
You're implying NYT has the same credibility as Infowars. Don't know in what dimension such a statement could be true, but it certainly isn't ours.
Also, the current government under Trump despises most of the big boys for obvious reason, so pretending they constantly push government narratives again highlights quite a distorted sense of reality.
NYT certainly doesn't have the same credibility as Infowars, but their name has certainly been tarnished.
Just look at Pulitzers awarded for the Collusion story that's been proven to be fake. Or the anti-semitic cartoon they were forced to withdraw last month.
If you go to the Pulitzer site, they link to the stories that the NYT was given the prize for. You should probably go read them yourself. None of them are fake. It was good reporting.
Somebody may have told you they were fake, but you should stop listening to them and go read the stories yourself.
Former NYT columnist and Pulitzer prize winner Chris Hedges now works for RT. Does that mean that RT is credible, or that Hedges has become less credible? Neither. It means that neither Google or the US government should be deciding which news outlets are credible any more I would trust Google to work in partnership with the Russian government to decide who is credible.
No I'm claiming that the NYT is less credible than they used to be, and not more credible than many other, smaller news outlets. Perhaps "establishment narrative| is more accurate than, "government narrative". If you are interested in understanding what this narrative is, go read Manufacturing Consent again or any of the dozens of books that have been written on the bias of US corporate media.
