[Cardinal96]

I read that article.  Am I the only one who thinks the Times should have waited before getting more tangible information before publishing that article?  This guy's name has been ruined, and he has not even had a chance to defend himself through the process of being formally charged.

He very well could be a scumbag that did what was alleged but this was too early for this story in my view.

[Cardinal96]

I read that article.  Am I the only one who thinks the Times should have waited before getting more tangible information before publishing that article?  This guy's name has been ruined, and he has not even had a chance to defend himself through the process of being formally charged.

He very well could be a scumbag that did what was alleged but this was too early for this story in my view.

[Cardinal96]

I read that article.  Am I the only one who thinks the Times should have waited before getting more tangible information before publishing that article?  This guy's name has been ruined, and he has not even had a chance to defend himself through the process of being formally charged.

He very well could be a scumbag that did what was alleged but this was too early for this story in my view.

[Cardinal96]

I read that article.  Am I the only one who thinks the Times should have waited before getting more tangible information before publishing that article?  This guy's name has been ruined, and he has not even had a chance to defend himself through the process of being formally charged.

He very well could be a scumbag that did what was alleged but this was too early for this story in my view.

[76lsjumb]

For the journalists among us, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the following:

This account of the accusation against Witt and how it affected his Rhodes candidacy is based on interviews with a half-dozen people with knowledge of all or part of the story; they all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing matters that the institutions treat as confidential.

Yale refused to confirm or deny the existence of the complaint. “The administration very strongly believes in the confidentiality policies we have in place,” said Thomas Conroy, Yale’s chief spokesman.

Elliot F. Gerson, the American secretary for the Rhodes Trust, said, “Matters relating to Rhodes scholarship selection, deliberations and decision-making have always been considered confidential.”

Many aspects of the situation remain unknown, including some details of the allegation against Witt; how he responded; how it was resolved; and whether Yale officials who handle Rhodes applications — including Richard C. Levin, the university’s president, who signed Witt’s endorsement letter — knew of the complaint.

If the story is being reported in the NY Times, somebody at the "institutions" must not be treating it as confidential, right, including the reporter's sources. who apparently believe that their identities, not the information, is the only thing entitled to confidentiality?

And, if "[m]any aspects of the situation remain unknown,"  how is it possible for the reporter to assert that the story is "based on interviews with...people with knowledge of ALL...of the story..." [emphasis added]?  If one or more of those persons knows all of the story then, logically, no aspects of the situation remain unknown.  At the same time, if it simply means that many aspects of the story remain unknown to the reporter, (1) shouldn't the reporter have gotten the rest of the story from the people who are reported to know all of it and/or (2) how does the reporter verify it when someone [presumably] asserts that he/she "knows all of the story"?

Everything in the story may be 100% true, but, as written, it strikes me as being on about the same level as all the recruiting blogs and tweets this time of year... Isn't the NY Times supposed to be on a slightly higher level than that?

[76lsjumb]

For the journalists among us, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the following:

This account of the accusation against Witt and how it affected his Rhodes candidacy is based on interviews with a half-dozen people with knowledge of all or part of the story; they all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing matters that the institutions treat as confidential.

Yale refused to confirm or deny the existence of the complaint. “The administration very strongly believes in the confidentiality policies we have in place,” said Thomas Conroy, Yale’s chief spokesman.

Elliot F. Gerson, the American secretary for the Rhodes Trust, said, “Matters relating to Rhodes scholarship selection, deliberations and decision-making have always been considered confidential.”

Many aspects of the situation remain unknown, including some details of the allegation against Witt; how he responded; how it was resolved; and whether Yale officials who handle Rhodes applications — including Richard C. Levin, the university’s president, who signed Witt’s endorsement letter — knew of the complaint.

If the story is being reported in the NY Times, somebody at the "institutions" must not be treating it as confidential, right, including the reporter's sources. who apparently believe that their identities, not the information, is the only thing entitled to confidentiality?

And, if "[m]any aspects of the situation remain unknown,"  how is it possible for the reporter to assert that the story is "based on interviews with...people with knowledge of ALL...of the story..." [emphasis added]?  If one or more of those persons knows all of the story then, logically, no aspects of the situation remain unknown.  At the same time, if it simply means that many aspects of the story remain unknown to the reporter, (1) shouldn't the reporter have gotten the rest of the story from the people who are reported to know all of it and/or (2) how does the reporter verify it when someone [presumably] asserts that he/she "knows all of the story"?

Everything in the story may be 100% true, but, as written, it strikes me as being on about the same level as all the recruiting blogs and tweets this time of year... Isn't the NY Times supposed to be on a slightly higher level than that?

[76lsjumb]

For the journalists among us, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the following:

This account of the accusation against Witt and how it affected his Rhodes candidacy is based on interviews with a half-dozen people with knowledge of all or part of the story; they all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing matters that the institutions treat as confidential.

Yale refused to confirm or deny the existence of the complaint. “The administration very strongly believes in the confidentiality policies we have in place,” said Thomas Conroy, Yale’s chief spokesman.

Elliot F. Gerson, the American secretary for the Rhodes Trust, said, “Matters relating to Rhodes scholarship selection, deliberations and decision-making have always been considered confidential.”

Many aspects of the situation remain unknown, including some details of the allegation against Witt; how he responded; how it was resolved; and whether Yale officials who handle Rhodes applications — including Richard C. Levin, the university’s president, who signed Witt’s endorsement letter — knew of the complaint.

If the story is being reported in the NY Times, somebody at the "institutions" must not be treating it as confidential, right, including the reporter's sources. who apparently believe that their identities, not the information, is the only thing entitled to confidentiality?

And, if "[m]any aspects of the situation remain unknown,"  how is it possible for the reporter to assert that the story is "based on interviews with...people with knowledge of ALL...of the story..." [emphasis added]?  If one or more of those persons knows all of the story then, logically, no aspects of the situation remain unknown.  At the same time, if it simply means that many aspects of the story remain unknown to the reporter, (1) shouldn't the reporter have gotten the rest of the story from the people who are reported to know all of it and/or (2) how does the reporter verify it when someone [presumably] asserts that he/she "knows all of the story"?

Everything in the story may be 100% true, but, as written, it strikes me as being on about the same level as all the recruiting blogs and tweets this time of year... Isn't the NY Times supposed to be on a slightly higher level than that?

[76lsjumb]

For the journalists among us, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the following:

This account of the accusation against Witt and how it affected his Rhodes candidacy is based on interviews with a half-dozen people with knowledge of all or part of the story; they all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing matters that the institutions treat as confidential.

Yale refused to confirm or deny the existence of the complaint. “The administration very strongly believes in the confidentiality policies we have in place,” said Thomas Conroy, Yale’s chief spokesman.

Elliot F. Gerson, the American secretary for the Rhodes Trust, said, “Matters relating to Rhodes scholarship selection, deliberations and decision-making have always been considered confidential.”

Many aspects of the situation remain unknown, including some details of the allegation against Witt; how he responded; how it was resolved; and whether Yale officials who handle Rhodes applications — including Richard C. Levin, the university’s president, who signed Witt’s endorsement letter — knew of the complaint.

If the story is being reported in the NY Times, somebody at the "institutions" must not be treating it as confidential, right, including the reporter's sources. who apparently believe that their identities, not the information, is the only thing entitled to confidentiality?

And, if "[m]any aspects of the situation remain unknown,"  how is it possible for the reporter to assert that the story is "based on interviews with...people with knowledge of ALL...of the story..." [emphasis added]?  If one or more of those persons knows all of the story then, logically, no aspects of the situation remain unknown.  At the same time, if it simply means that many aspects of the story remain unknown to the reporter, (1) shouldn't the reporter have gotten the rest of the story from the people who are reported to know all of it and/or (2) how does the reporter verify it when someone [presumably] asserts that he/she "knows all of the story"?

Everything in the story may be 100% true, but, as written, it strikes me as being on about the same level as all the recruiting blogs and tweets this time of year... Isn't the NY Times supposed to be on a slightly higher level than that?