The New York Times is not some Murdoch trashy paper that deals with gossip and controversy.
The integrity of their work is important because that is what is keeping the paper alive
whilst the others are falling by the way side. Maybe you should actually try reading it sometime.
Correction: For the NYT's business, their reputation for integrity is what's important, not the actual integrity of their work. For example, it could be better (or just safer) for that reputation to make up a story that agrees with the conventional wisdom than to tell an unexpected truth that does not.
I am well aware of Judy Miller and the many other occasions where their work has been dreadful. But we are talking about a paper that has been around 150+ years.
My point was that they aren't the type of paper who writes flamebait articles just to get more online hits.
The Judy Miller incidents directly refute your assertion that they don't deal in controversies (and arguably gossip). Arguing that they don't do those things at all, except when they do, isn't very convincing, and your conclusion is a non-sequitur at any rate. "Many other occasions!"
The integrity of their work is important because that is what is keeping the paper alive whilst the others are falling by the way side. Maybe you should actually try reading it sometime.