The New York Times is often far too deferent to the U.S. Government and a lot of people do knock them for it, but the difference between that and a state-run propaganda office like RT is pretty significant. See, for example, this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/18/malaysia... where a RT reporter resigned on the spot because she was being forced to report facts that everyone knew were blatantly false. It sucks in both cases, but this is a whole different level of suck.
(Shrug) If you work for Fox News, you, too, are under orders to report things that are blatantly false. (Disagree? Then you need to explain why they felt it necessary to argue in court that they have the right to lie to their viewers and call it "News.")
Indeed, one should avoid quoting Fox News or using it as a source, too. (Although that name is an umbrella for a large number of 'products' - I would trust something written on foxnews.com more than whatever Hannity said in his daily primetime show.)
No, they aren't. But they don't need to be. Just because they aren't directly controlled on paper by the US gov't, it doesn't mean that they aren't just a tool for US gov't propaganda.
Distrust of the media is more crucial than ever for independent thought.
