The furor erupted as Paterson, a Democrat, is preparing for a difficult election fight and facing calls from within his own party to step aside for fear he cannot win. It is a normal time for a paper like The Times to prepare an in-depth examination of his nearly two-year tenure, and Times reporters have been interviewing sources about him...
I think The Times and Paterson were caught in a terrible spot, but I think the paper is right to maintain its silence until ready to speak with an article on its own pages. It could have denied the Paterson rumors. But what if the next time it really was looking into a scandal involving a public figure? Silence then would speak volumes. The demands for comment on work in progress could be limitless.
I'll be slower to jump next time, I hope.
