I don't know this, and I know people who work at the Times, so what is it that you know?

Yes, there is a neocon mind set at the Times, but for the most part it's not radical nor is it universal.  The bigger problem is the unwillingness to present anything that might be considered or construed as "opinion" in a delicate "hard news" article.  This too is a mind set, and is often manipulated by news sources.  

Face it.  Presenting or confirming that Bush might have caused thousands of deaths by his actions is explosive.  It's the type of thing that many journalists are going to be allergic about.  Especially the Times, which likes to think of itself as the objective newspaper of record.  "Just the facts, Mam."

Of course one person's "opinion" is another person's "judgment."  And the Times often falls, lamentably, short of its own ideals. I frequently rage at the Times for being imbedded in conventional wisdoms and failing to provide perspective nedessary to understand the news it is reporting.

But all in all the news side does try, which only a handful of other outlets even aspire to do.  Consider also the challenge in personnel.  Very few journalists/writers have the skill/talent/knowledge to provide context in news articles that also are communicating facts.  In this case the "facts" involve ads that don't pretend to objectivity--that are intended to persuade.  Face it, that's a swaying tightrope to traverse as you're writing--or editing--an article under deadline pressure.

Of course, some writers, and editors, may also be moral cowards.