The Times? An advocate for readers, or a stenographer for politicians (and others in power)

Clay Shirky, in the Guardian, has a wise follow-up to the "Truth Vigilante" question:

The immediate fallout from [Public Editor Arthur] Brisbane's question will be minor – no paper in the United States, not even the Times (as its editor partially concedes), has enough staff to express continuous skepticism about political speech – but there may yet be a lasting effect to be reckoned with. Having asked, in a completely innocent way, whether the Times should behave like an advocate for the readers, rather than a stenographer to politicians, the question cannot now be unasked. Every day in which the Times (and indeed, most US papers) fail at what has clearly surfaced as their readers' preference on the matter will be a day in which that gap remains uncomfortably visible.

And that includes when politicians are talking about Atlantic Yards--and when developers do so, as well.