Times' ombudsman looks into Witt story

• TWEET
• SHARE
• SHARE

It was a big deal when Yale quarterback Patrick Witt turned down the opportunity to interview for a Rhodes Scholarship to play in his final football game against Harvard. It was an even bigger deal when the New York Times last week alleged Witt never had the chance to turn down his interview — because his candidacy was put in question due to allegations of sexual assault.

Then, after the Times dropped that bombshell, there was quite a bit of fallout. Witt responded in a statement through his agency denying the Times' claims, and many were upset with the Times' use of completely anonymous sourcing. The book is hardly shut on this case, and we may never know exactly what happened, but the NYT's ombudsman looked into the story and reported on his findings today.

The full text of his story is fascinating and worth a read, but here is his conclusion, which at least provides a little more insight into the story:

Bottom line: I’m not in a position to dispute The Times’s finding, although I think the story was handicapped by not having Mr. Witt’s version of the timeline. I haven’t seen proof that Mr. Witt was no longer a contender when he bowed out.

Much clearer to me is that reporting a claim of sexual assault based on anonymous sourcing, without Mr. Witt’s and the woman’s side of it, was unfair to Mr. Witt. The Times thought it was a necessary part in its exposé of the feel-good sports story. But the impact of the “sexual assault” label on Mr. Witt is substantial and out of proportion for a case that went uninvestigated and unadjudicated.

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.

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.”