Compared to what? I find that if the NYT reports something as a fact, it generally turns out to be a fact. I don't see what the problem is in this case. Unlike the trash right-wing sites whose spectacular items generally turn out to be spectacularly wrong (e.g., "Evidence suggests Austin Bombings May Be the Work of ANTIFA"), they name their sources and say where they got the info.
It's natural that there will be more to find out, so the reporting is naturally incomplete, but do you have reason to think that the above not-very-outrageous or inflammatory items they're reporting about the poor crazy kid's background are false or misleading? Do you figure he had actually converted to Islam in the last year or so, and the NYT knows about it and are hiding it?
Apparently the kid was a lone wolf, not that ANTIFA is above doing the same. Just a matter of time, unfortunately.
Which anti-depressant was he taking?
"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever ...."
Thomas Jefferson
I get it.
As a general rule I at least attempt to try and cross-reference a story with several "reliable" new sources, which is getting harder and harder to do.
What have been proven unreliable propaganda mills for the Liberal Progressives like MSNBS, NY "Nazi" Times, Washington [com]Post, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Time, etc. are all unreliable for me. I've caught them red-handed lying about stories time and again by cross referencing news stories. For decades, especially the NYT.
Remember the Prepper's Motto: "Panic early and avoid the rush!"
Everything I post is Fiction and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.
88 = Heil Hitler