The article seems to suggest that the NYT runs all articles past some kind of government censor before publication. Eventually it is clear from the quoted statement that this is not at all what they admitted. The article is highly sensational and biased.

I agree with most other reviewers that this article is a bit sensational, and I think the author overreaches when he continually states that the NY Times' relationship with the CIA is "symbiotic". I agree with author Ben Norton that corporate media can sometimes cozy up or fall over themselves to appease government agencies by killing storied for the sake of "national security", when sometimes it's more a matter of saving face from an embarrassing story. I would have liked to have seen more concrete examples and first-hand reporting, so that readers could have more evidence when examining these claims.

According to the article "The newspaper of record is essentially admitting that it has a symbiotic relationship with the US government" . The author stays relevant with a history of the NY Times and other news outlets stating the government line of "weapons of mass destruction" as the rationale for the War in Iraq, doing no investigative journalism to support or refute this government claim. He also relates examples given by James Risen, a former Times journalist, including how his editors had been “quite willing to cooperate with the government.” In fact, a top CIA official even told Risen that his rule of thumb for approving a covert operation was, “How will this look on the front page of the New York Times?” The article goes back to Watergate's Carl Bernstein, who published a major cover story for Rolling Stone in 1977 titled “The CIA and the Media". The NY Times, defending itself against the accusation of treason from Trump, has admitted what many have feared for a very long time.