Now that a semblance of normalcy has returned to upper Broadway, I thought it worthwhile to call attention to what some may have missed: the Public Editor's column in last Sunday's Times.

It begins:

For nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending apolitical advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at theAmerican commander in Iraq.

But I think the ad violatedThe Timess own written standards, and the paper now says that theadvertiser got a price break it was not entitled to.

It continues:

By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on bothMoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq and on The Times.It gave the Bush administration and its allies an opportunity to changethe subject from questions about an unpopular war to defense of arespected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including aBronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to acottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of theliberal media.

And, in a manner reminiscent of some episcopal non-statements, this:

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of itsparent company, declined to name the salesperson or to say whetherdisciplinary action would be taken.

Bravo to Clark Hoyt for temporarily breaching the bastions.