The New York Times has rather decisively broken with the Obama administration:

[starroute]

78. Editorials are a cheap way of scoring points

You have to look at what the paper actually does and what policies they actually push.

For example, I lost my faith in the Times over the Vietnam War -- both their coverage of the war itself and their persistent distortion of anti-war demonstrations. Here's an article by Edward Hermann that lays out some of the details, in particular the way in which the Times did its best to reduce a powerful wave of opposition to US imperialism to a series of inside-the-Beltway quibbles over tactics.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/AllNewsFit3_Herman.html

In his Without Fear Or Favor, Harrison Salisbury acknowledged that in 1962 the Times was "deeply and consistently" supportive of the war policy. He also admitted that the paper was taken in by the Johnson administration's lies on the 1964 Bay of Tonkin incident that impelled Congress to give Johnson a blank check to make war. Salisbury claims, however, that in 1965 the Times began to question the war and moved into an increasingly oppositional stance, culminating in the publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

While there is some truth in Salisbury's portrayal, it is misleading in important respects. For one thing, from 1954 to the present, the Times never abandoned the framework and language of apologetics, according to which the U.S. was resisting somebody else's aggression and protecting "South Vietnam." ... Furthermore, although from 1965 onward the Times was willing to publish more information that put the war in a less favorable light, it never broke from its heavy dependence on official sources or its reluctance to check out official lies or explore the damage being wrought by the U.S. war machine. In contrast with its eager pursuit of refugees from the Khmer Rouge after April 1975, the paper rarely sought out testimony from the millions of Vietnamese refugees from U.S. bombing and chemical war-fare. In its opinion columns as well, the new openness was towards those commentators who accepted the premises of the war and would limit their criticisms to its tactical problems and costs to us. From beginning to end, those who criticized the war as aggression and immoral at its root were excluded from the debate. ...

The Times was not only not "adversarial" during the Vietnam War, it was for a long time a war promoter. As antiwar feeling grew and encompassed an increasing proportion of the elite, the Times provided more information and allowed more criticism within prescribed limits (a tragic error, despite the best of intentions, because of unwinnability and excessive costs-to us). But even then it continued to provide support for the war by accepting the official ideological framework, by frequent uncritical transmissions of official propaganda, by providing very limited and often misleading information on government intentions and the damage being inflicted on Vietnam, and by excluding fundamental criticism. It is one of the major fallacies about the war that antiwar critics were given media access-those that opposed the war on principle were excluded from the Times, and the antiwar movement and the "sixties" have always been treated with hostility by the paper.