Shots In The Dark: A Small Dart to the Crimson

Tuesday, January 09, 2024

A Small Dart to the Crimson

The fellows...have even tried to figure out what went wrong the last time, launching an informal review of the 2001 presidential search. After talking with participants in that process, they and Corporation secretary Marc Goodheart concluded that the search committee had "frontloaded" the process, spending too much time considering candidates who were clearly not viable and not enough time vetting the truly plausible candidates.....

Yours truly in 02138's premier issue, September 2006

In a marked change from the presidential search of 2000-2001, the committee has decided this time to place a greater emphasis on vetting candidates in the final stages of the search, according to three sources who have spoken with committee members. The committee members feel the '00-'01 search panel spent too much time whittling down the list of candidates and not enough time vetting the final few, the three individuals said.

The Harvard Crimson, January 9, 2024

Come on, guys—it's not news if someone else reported it three months ago....

¶ 9:12 AM

Comments:

I dunno, you think the Crimson should have just skipped that point?

# posted by Anonymous : 9:49 AM

I think the Crimson could have cited that it was reported elsewhere first, rather than making it sound as if they were breaking news, yes.

# posted by richard : 10:29 AM

Come on, Richard. The Crimson was reporting is happening now, not what was expected to happen. Consider it a follow up to your (small) scoop in September.
You and the Crimson are doing so much better than the rest of media, especially the TIMES. No reason to fight among yourselves.

# posted by Anonymous : 10:37 PM

There's an assumption running throughout this blog that the Times, and perhaps too the Journal, *should* be on top of this story: that they're being put to shame by the Crimson's reporting, Richard's analysis, etc.

But this isn't Iraq, you know. The Crimson *should* be #1 on this story. The Times might have more important things to do.

# posted by eadw : 8:29 AM

I agree that the Crimson should be breaking news on this story. The Globe, perhaps, too.

But I don't see any reason why the Times shouldn't be expected to break news also. Aren't we letting that paper off easily if we say, oh, a recap of what everyone in Cambridge already knows is just fine?

# posted by richard : 8:54 AM

About Me