3. Handcoding takes far more time than is necessary in a changing scenario of today's news. Effort not proportional to returns. As a shareholder, i would sue them for wasting money.
Ummm... ever hear of the term CMS? You handcode the template, and editors/writers/journos who don't grok HTML use the CMS to enter it. They can add/change stories as often as they like without affecting the layout.
4. Dreamweaver allows preview easily and pretty much automates repeatable tasks. Handcoding requires a Mechanical Turk.
Handcoding allows preview easily too. It's called Alt-Tab to Firefox then F5. And I don't think you could convince anyone that Dreamweaver's viewing tools are better than the Firefox + Firebug combination. As for automating repeatable tasks -- there's scaffolding, commands like sed, writing small scripts... all sorts of things designed to easily manipulate huge chunks of text.
Besides the most basic 10-page-or-less-I-have-a-web-page-woohoo situation that last existed 10 years ago, I don't see any reason to use Dreamweaver. Go ahead and sue the NYT -- we could all use a good laugh.