Here is the original story. Yale senior and star Quarterback, Patrick Witt, passed on his chance for a Rhodes Scholarship to play in the game with Harvard, "The Game". No mention of sexual assault charges, formal or informal. (For those wondering about how sexual assault charges can be informal, welcome to the club.)
Then came Reporter Richard Pérez-Peña, on 26 January 2012, with this story. I am thinking Mr Pérez-Peña is a Harvard graduate, given that he gives us an in-depth report on Mr Witt that would make Republicans happy if that effort had been applied to Senator Obama, back in 2008. One of the things that came up was the "informal" sexual assault complaint. The reporter contends that this informal complaint scuttled the Rhodes Scholarship application.
But Witt was no longer a contender for the Rhodes, a rare honor reserved for those who excel in academics, activities and character. Several days earlier, according to people involved on both sides of the process, the Rhodes Trust had learned through unofficial channels that a fellow student had accused Witt of sexual assault. The Rhodes Trust informed Yale and Witt that his candidacy was suspended unless the university decided to re-endorse it.I still have questions, such as who leaked this information to the Rhodes Committee, if it actually was? Who leaked this to the reporter, Mr Pérez-Peña? Were was some editor, providing adult leadership?
I wonder if this was reviewed on "Beat the Press"?
The "Public Editor" of The New York Times, Mr Arthur S Brisbane, has weighed in. Here are the last two paragraphs:
Maybe you just can’t publish this story, not with the facts known now. If those involved in the case are more forthcoming later, or if the allegations are investigated more fully, then perhaps. But for now, the timeline and whether Yale had declined to re-endorse Mr. Witt are murky and unresolved — by me and certainly by what was presented in the Times article. Even more unknown are the details of the accusation of sexual assault.For me the real story here is not The Game or the Rhodes Scholarship, but rather this "informal" sexual acquisition process of Yale. It seems to me to be disrespectful to the accused and the accuser.
This was a compelling story, and The Times was motivated to publish it. But when something as serious as a person’s reputation is at stake, it’s not enough to rely on anonymous sourcing, effectively saying “trust us.”
Because of the power of the press, great responsibility falls to the reporting chain. I sometimes think MSM attacks on bloggers is just to deflect the light from the Press itself.
Regards — Cliff
No comments:
Post a Comment