I'm not saying your example is wrong, but the fact that it's from nearly 20 years ago is very telling. Even the most credible of sources will get something very wrong on occasion.
telling in what way? This behavior hasn't really slowed down, and was persistent through the Obama administration, too.
Many, including myself, feel as if that behavior is par for the course with regards to NYT. Chomsky refers to it as the NYT's special role of 'creating history'[0].
That's why they have some strange ability to be cited realistically by serious people, even when they're entirely wrong about something.
All sources will get it wrong from time to time. A reporter's primary loyalty should be to the truth, regardless of whether it aligns with their pre-conceived notions. Coming up with a way to quantify that loyalty would be a service to society.
Calling out "hey, we totally got this one wrong, and here's why" even "louder" than original prediction is great. This is how you earn trust.
Quietly publishing a correction on the metaphorical back page? Nope. Not even close.
Silently changing the article after the fact? Oh hell no. Go directly to credibility jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
And I am afraid I do not know a mainstream media that doesn’t do that on a massive scale. The WSJ perhaps. Certainly not the NYT.