I have mixed feelings about his decision.  I would be great, wouldn't it, to never back down when you've written something you feel so strongly about?  Especially if he's in the business of writing opinions.  On the other hand, if he, in fact, recognized that he really doesn't want to be the hotshot he came off as, he did a brave thing by admitting it and changing his tone.  He has to be true to himself if he's going to maintain an ongoing opinion column. 

I would hate to think he felt threatened by anyone at the NYT, but that's likely, too.  

As much as I dislike the Tea Party, I guess if I were writing for the NYT I would have to consider the source and cool it a little.  It says something for Joe Nocera that he went with his gut and wrote what he felt, being such a newbie at the old Gray Lady.  Good for him!  And good for him for apologizing, if he really felt that, too  I don't see anything cowardly in what he did.  I think I really like the guy.

I read Nocera's original column, his "apology" column, and the public editor's column hailing his apology. Nocera had nothing to apologize for, and should not have done so. If you regret the tone of what you wrote, just change the tone of what you write in future; don't grovel. He said it was because he had earlier called for more civility, making his "terrorist" analogy hypocritical. Why not simply recant his call for civility, since it was obviously more off-base than his depiction of the Tea Party?