Not really though. One has to look at the articles and values espoused by the newspaper and not an individual's assertions to determine where the newspaper stands. A news paper that espoused the establishment's line of Saddam Hussien possessing weapons of mass destruction which factually was wrong cannot claim to be resilient to political pressure. Look at its coverage on plethora of issues from labour movements, civil rights, Cuban missile crisis, interventions in South America, financing of Contras , coverage of China, and middle east. It has always supported and validated the establishment's position even though now we know that the establishment was wrong in every single of this.
Risen should have been fired for the Wen-Ho Lee with hunt alone, where the Federal judge in charge of the case apologized on behalf of the judicial branch of the Federal government to Mr. Lee for the way he was mistreated, with Risen acting as a cheerleader for the notorious Notra Trulock.
He does have a point about the Plame affair, but there is a big difference between journalists helping cover up malfeasance in public office and those protecting whistleblowers. This could be addressed by extending the whistleblower statutes to cover journalists.
In fact the article closes:
Since then, the Times has been much more willing to stand up to the government and refuse to go along with White House demands to hold or kill stories.
I think the major takeaway is really the erosion of journalistic protections which has occurred over the last decade+.