The "agenda setting" New York Times has been supportive of US imperial goals since the end of the second World War and continues to this day. This is just one of many examples.

After the successful CIA-backed coup that overthrew the parliamentary government of the conservative nationalist Mossadegh in Iran, restoring the Shah and leaving U.S. oil companies with 40% of the formerly British concession, the New York Times declared editorially on August 6, 1954, that all of this was "good news indeed":

The New York Times: THE IRANIAN ACCORD

Costly as the dispute over Iranian oil has been to all concerned, the affair may yet be proved worthwhile if lessons are learned from it: Underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism.

It is perhaps too much to hope that Iran's experience will prevent the rise of Mossadeghs in other countries, but that experience may at least strengthen the hands of more reasonable and more far-seeing leaders.
When Mossadegh was in office, the Editors of the New York Times charged that:

A plebiscite more fantastic and farcical than any ever held under Hitler or Stalin is now being staged in Iran by Premier Mossadegh in an effort to make himself unchallenged dictator of the country.
When the Shah was in power, the Editors of the New York Times gushed:

The great mass of the Iranian people are doubtless behind the Shah in his bold new reform efforts. The national plebiscite he called early this year gave emphatic evidence of this.
-With a 99% vote in favor of the Shah.