Ghorayshi's article proves that a long-established art of journalism remains alive and well to this day -- the ability to tell no direct falsehoods, and yet still manage to lie. Small wonder that the Times can get away with their claims of checking the article for veracity: taken solely as an emotionally disconnected recitation of the facts, there's surely nothing with which to find fault.
Of course, that's if an emotionless machine were reading the article in question. Unless the editor responsible for green-lighting this yellow-journalism is some kind of automaton - a supposition which will probably remain unanswered, as no discernible proof is likely to be found either way - they bear as much responsibility for the generally transmisic slope of the article, and in turn, so too the Times as a whole.