This is from Margaret Sullivan, the New York Times "Public Editor," sort of the paper's ombudsman, on Kristof's posting of Dylan Farrow's letter on his Times blog. I do wish people who wrote for the New York Times and even to the New York Times did more than pose questions. I wish they'd try answering, at least the questions they themselves pose. In the end, this is very disappointing, especially from Ms. Sullivan. What Kristof did seemed to me to be wrong but in a vague way that I still cannot quite put my finger on. Professor Rasmussen raises a number of concerns and all Ms. Sullivan, the ombudsman, can say is that she is "troubled by the same questions?" C'mon, man, that's a cop-out, what is the answer? Did Kristof do wrong and if so, how exactly? Sullivan does the same thing Kristof did. He just threw Dylan Farrow's letter out there, ostensibly for us to "reflect on." She just throws Rasmussen's email on Kristof's ethics out there. In both cases, the implication is clear: Woody Allen molested Dylan Farrow and Nicholas D. Kristof committed an ethical transgression. But neither Kristof nor Sullivan say so directly. God damn it, I hate when people do this stuff:
As I’ve been thinking about Nicholas Kristof’s Sunday column and the related blog post that have caused so much discussion and disagreement, a number of thoughtful emails from readers have arrived.
One, from Chris Rasmussen, an associate professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University, is particularly reasonable, intelligent and thought-provoking. He writes:
I have long been an admirer of Nicholas Kristof’s columns. I cannot say that I object to his column on Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen. But I write to ask about the propriety of publishing largely one-sided columns assailing a lone individual. The writers who are permitted to “columnize” for The Times have a tremendously influential platform, and I wonder whether they should use that platform to advocate on behalf of personal friends, as Mr. Kristof did yesterday. If Dylan Farrow wishes to publish an open letter about her allegations, there are ample forums in this internet age. Should The Times and Mr. Kristof lend their credibility to her argument against Woody Allen?I cannot possibly know what actually transpired between Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow — no one can. Initially, I was strongly inclined to accept her account of being sexually abused. But Robert B. Weide’s recent column in “The Daily Beast” raises significant questions about the veracity of her childhood testimony and the acrimonious falling out between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow.I am not a journalist. I do sometimes teach courses on ethics. I know that public figures are fair game. So I write simply to ask about the wisdom and propriety of these ad hominem columns, which assail particular individuals and champion others. A couple weeks ago, Bill Keller published a controversial column about cancer and dying. Personally, I agreed with his larger point about how to die a good death. But his criticisms of cancer patient Lisa Bonchek Adams and his paean to his own father in-law seemed ad hominem.I do not have answers. Only questions.
I, too, have long found much to admire in Mr. Kristof’s work. And I was glad to see that he had asked Mr. Allen for comment and had disclosed his relationship with the Farrows. But, while acknowledging that Times columnists appropriately have very free rein in choosing subject matter and commenting on it as they see fit, I am troubled by the same questions raised here by Dr. Rasmussen.
And I urge those who who have not yet done so to read Mr. Weide’s illuminating article. It provides essential context.
