'NYT' Public Editor Backs Paper on Patterson

It's been a raging issue all week, with NY Gov. Patterson even appearing on Larry King to charge that the NYT had been spreading, or at least inviting, rumors about a scandal involving him -- even without running a story. Now the paper's public editor appears with his own probe, which concludes that it was right for the Times to hold off comment and let the reporting speak for itself, whenever (and if) it does appear. Excerpt:

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.

Keller is right when he says, “The only honorable thing I know to do in such a situation is to finish our reporting as expeditiously as possible and tell readers what we’ve learned.”