Careful here. I recommend you watch an episode of Vice on HBO. I had my doubts as well, but the reporting on that show is great and my only criticism is that its too short. The article you posted is just an opinion of that person and she doesn't provide specific examples or lay it out objectively. I just recommend checking it out and then judge it for yourself.

I am kind of cynical but I just assume that's true with most of the media these days.

I haven't had a chance to read that New Yorker article yet, but who would you think would benefit from this bike article? Do you think it's a paid placement from a bike manufacturer?

(I'm not being snarky, it's a genuine question.)

There's a significant difference between Vice and the publications (like the NY Times) that PG refers to in his article:

Vice has a POLICY of taking money from companies in exchange for allowing editorial control. As in, they encourage and have acknowledged this practice. They represent a strange, blurry hybrid between an ad agency and a news outlet.

Makes me prefer Vice. It seems worse and obviously deceptive to routinely do what is mentioned in the article and yet have no policy or anything for it. As if that makes it less wrong (the opposite in my opinion).

Check out the real estate section of your local newspaper. It has a long and glorious tradition.

This wikipedia article has further details from multiple sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Cycleway

I've seen the original plans on display in Pasadena.