“I can’t remember a time where I’ve felt more comfortable in the paper,” said Jody Lee, a former senior editor for the Times who is now a writer at The New Republic.
“There are a lot of things that I’ve learned from the newspaper, like how to read the headlines, how to get the right angle and how to make sense of the stories.”
Lee, who worked at the Times for more than a decade, says the paper’s editors are taking their expertise and changing it to better suit their audiences.
“They’re doing a lot with the news, and they’re doing it with a lot more detail and a lot less emotion than we’re used to,” she said.
“The Times has always had a reputation as a kind of news machine.”
The paper’s editorial standards have been evolving as its coverage has become more complicated, with new outlets like BuzzFeed News, Politico, and The Washington Post adding a new element of journalism to the paper each year.
These new outlets are becoming much more important to the Times, which is struggling to keep up with the pace of the news cycle.
BuzzFeed News recently announced a partnership with the Times to create a new site that will showcase content from the outlets.
BuzzFeed said it will run content from BuzzFeed News on its site as well as the Times’ own reporting.
In its new newsroom, the Times has also been trying to change the way it covers some of its older stories, like the 2012 presidential election, in which the paper covered the story of a young black man who was shot in the back during a protest.
A few years ago, the paper was criticized for not including the footage in the original story about the young man in the lead-up to the presidential election.
But now, with Trump’s presidential campaign surging, the company said the story was included because the video “was not relevant.”
BuzzFeed News has been the subject of several editorial complaints from the Times.
In 2014, a Times story on the Clinton Foundation was taken down after an outcry.
But it was eventually restored after a long court battle with the newspaper’s ownership.
The company also faced backlash for a 2012 story about how it covered the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
“A story about an obscure but controversial Islamic State group was deemed too controversial to include in a new Times article,” the Times wrote in its 2015 editorial.
“In some cases, the decision was based on a bias against the group that was at the time a highly divisive topic in American politics.”
The Times’ decision to publish an opinion piece on the Islamic state is not the first time it has taken aim at BuzzFeed News.
In August, the newspaper published an opinion article on the news organization that called BuzzFeed “the most dangerous propaganda outlet in America.”
BuzzFeed responded with a blog post titled “We’re not afraid of BuzzFeed.”
The company said that “we’re not scared of BuzzFeed.
They’ve been a constant target of our reporting and reporting is part of our mission at the paper.”
The decision to include the article has been met with criticism from many news outlets, including the Times itself.
BuzzFeed has been called out by the White House, which has criticized the Times on Twitter.
BuzzFeed’s decision to write a critical article on BuzzFeed’s “most dangerous propaganda organization in America” was just a small part of the Times changing course.
— @nytimes — NYT editorial board (@nytimes) September 27, 2017 In January, the publisher of The New York Post published a story on how the company had “injected the idea that a white supremacist was running the world” into the paper.
The paper also apologized to the families of some of the victims of a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
The Washington Times also apologized on Thursday after it published an article that called out the paper for a “brazen and disturbing” attack on the privacy of journalists.
The Times apologized to several journalists in 2016 after a story about a reporter named Julie Tate was removed from the paper, sparking an online backlash.
The decision was made by the editorial board to put the story on hold until the newspaper could “address the specific allegations in this article.”
The Washington paper apologized to reporter Tate’s family in 2016, saying it had been “inadvertently” publishing her name in its story.
The editorial board also criticized the paper in a recent editorial for not having “a clear definition of the term ‘journalism.'”