Their assertion, so their responsibility to prove.
Typically the New York Times "proves" their assertions with labyrinthine innuendo, and not much more, leaving readers too exhausted to follow their convoluted "logic," then mount a cogent argument against their myriad "causes."
Much as a competent attorney will cast doubt about the opposing case with an endless litany of mudslinging, any of which, or the aggregate, might be sufficient to persuade without actual proof. Proof by reasonable doubt of the opposite. Those who desperately look to the media to tell them what to think, eagerly lap it up, mistaking the Kafkaesque verbage for intelligent argument.