In the Washington Post, columnist Kathleen Parker blasts the New York Times for printing the Patrick Witt story.

It’s not until the 11th paragraph that readers even learn about the half-dozen anonymous sources. Not until the 14th paragraph does the Times tell us that “many aspects of the situation remain unknown, including some details of the allegation against Witt; how he responded; how it was resolved; and whether Yale officials who handle Rhodes applications — including Richard C. Levin, the university’s president, who signed Witt’s endorsement letter — knew of the complaint.”

Translation: We don’t know anything, but we’re smearing this guy anyway.

In the Hartford Courant, columnist Jeff Jacobs—who had previously written about Witt—calls on Yale president Richard Levin to speak (which would likely violate the confidentiality of the sexual assault investigation). Jacobs also reveals that he was solicited to write about Witt in late October; I wrote yesterday that I would be surprised if Yale had actively prompted the original stories about Witt’s dilemma, so mea culpa—sounds like I was wrong about that.

In the YDN, editor Max de la Bruyere explains his decision not to run the Witt story (thereby showing more editorial judgment than the fabled New York Times).

In order to be fair to all those involved and the process they had adhered to, and because the nature of the complaint meant that all its details remain allegations, the News chose not to print a story.

Sometimes in journalism, not running a story is the hardest thing you can do—much harder than running with a story—and de la Bruyere deserves a huge amount of credit for showing so much maturity.

Not so much Richard Perez-Pena. In one of the most self-justifying follow-ups I’ve ever seen written, Perez-Pena defends his decision to run with a story based on a victim he doesn’t know making allegations he doesn’t know fed to him by sources he can’t disclose. This article is as shoddy and disingenuous as Perez-Pena’s hatchet job yesterday.

Titling his article “Diverging Stories of a Rhodes Candidacy“—those stories being Witt’s and, let’s be honest here, Perez-Pena’s—the author continues to frame Witt’s handling of the Rhodes-vs-football matter as deceitful.

I’m going to quote P-P at some length here, because it’s important:

The complaint and its outcome remained secret, with no word sent to officials with the Rhodes scholarship trust. And Witt went on to be the often glowing subject of news media coverage, held up as an exemplar of brains, brawn and character, a young man torn between attending a required final Rhodes interview on Nov. 19 and taking part in the football team’s season highlight, the game against Harvard the same day.

But in early November, the Rhodes Trust informed Yale administrators that it had learned of the allegation against Witt, according to people with knowledge of the episode who were granted anonymity to discuss confidential matters. Rhodes officials informed Yale that Witt’s candidacy had been suspended, and Yale would have to decide whether to re-endorse Witt if it wanted his candidacy to remain viable, the people said.

On Nov. 13, Yale and Witt announced that he was withdrawing his candidacy and that he would play against Harvard. There was no mention that any concerns had been raised by the Rhodes officials.

A couple of huge facts that P-P rather craftily omits: As Witt’s spokesperson pointed out yesterday, in this New Haven Register article dated November 1—which is to say, sooner than Witt and Yale heard from the Rhodes Trust—Witt indicates that he’s leaning toward withdrawing his application. It’s called: “Patrick Witt Places ‘the Game’ Over Rhodes Interview.”

While Witt didn’t make his final decision public until later, that’s a pretty important piece of information not to provide immediately. Why does Perez-Pena wait until a few paragraphs before the end of his story to do so? Because he knows that it makes him look ridiculous, and makes his entire house-of-cards journalism collapse. If Witt gave several interviews indicating that he’d probably play The Game rather than attend the Rhodes interview before he’d heard anything from the Rhodes people , where is the story here? It doesn’t exist.

Here’s the other fatal flaw in P-P’s argument: The implicit assumption that Yale officials had to tell the Rhodes Trust of the allegation against Witt, and that because they didn’t, they were engaged in a cover-up.

But how can Perez-Pena make this claim when a) he doesn’t know what the allegation was, and b) he doesn’t know (at least he didn’t in his story yesterday) of its resolution? In other words, if Yale thought that Witt hadn’t done anything, why would the university have any obligation to send the Rhodes Trust information that would likely stain Witt’s reputation regardless? (Just as Perez-Pena’s unsupported allegations have stained Witt’s reputation.)

The irony is that, in fact, P-P does know more about the outcome of the case than he did earlier—thanks to Patrick Witt, whose spokesperson and Max de la Bruyere are—and this is important—the only people to go on the record in all the thousands of words written by P-P. The only ones willing to put their name to what they say.

At the meeting’s end, Witt was told to stay away from his accuser. No other action was taken.

Who knows what this information really means—doesn’t sound particularly serious to me—but Perez-Pena only knows it because it came from Witt, not because any of his anonymous sources provided it.

We also know from Witt that he asked for a formal inquiry into the allegations, apparently because he wanted a record that would establish his innocence, and was denied on the grounds that there was no need for one. Sounds like Yale might want to reconsider that policy.

Nonetheless, Perez-Pena continúes to smear Witt with innuendo, though. Like this:

The Times also reported Thursday that Witt had twice been arrested, once when he was a student at the University of Nebraska and again in New Haven in 2010. Witt’s agent said he was not sure whether Witt had disclosed to Rhodes officials his two arrests, neither of which led to a criminal record. Yale’s own Rhodes application does not ask about any disciplinary history outside the university.

Magazu said Witt disclosed his Nebraska arrest to Yale at the time he transferred in 2009.

What on earth is the point of this? Perez-Pena seems to be trying to suggest that Witt has a history of bad behavior in an effort to buttress his implication that Witt is a sexual predator. But of course, Witt’s prior brushes with the law, which sounded extremely minor, aren’t necessarily relevant to any subsequent allegation, and Perez-Pena certainly never establishes that they are—he only implies it. If he really believes that these things demonstrate something meaningful about Witt’s character—something relevant to the sexual allegation—he should come out and say so. That he only implies it is gross.

He’s also implying that Witt has a history of covering things up—but given that the Yale Rhodes application doesn’t ask you to include any disciplinary history outside the university, P-P is maligning Witt for, possibly, not including information on an application that doesn’t ask for it.

Vile.

By the end of this embarrassing article, Perez-Pena is so desperate to defend his hackwork that he resorts to this claim:

Indeed, in a Wall Street Journal article published Nov. 12 — days after Witt now says he had told Yale of his decision to play against Harvard — both Witt and Yale’s athletic director were quoted talking about what they said remained a very difficult choice.

“I just need to make a choice and live with it,” Witt told the newspaper.

Those are the last words of Perez-Pena’s article. But you know what a good reporter does, Richard? He/she calls up the author of that Wall Street Journal story and says, hey, when did you interview Patrick Witt for that story you wrote? Was it the day before…or a few days before?

If a reporter doesn’t do that, you know what that usually means? That he didn’t want to know the answer.

The Times needs to yank Perez-Pena from this story and start looking into how this fiasco made its way into print.

By the way, one of the reasons I’m so passionate about this subject is because I’ve reported on issues surrounding violence against women, and I know when you go to press with a story and when you don’t. Lives change when you go to press; people get hurt; you don’t do it if you don’t have your facts. Already Perez-Pena’s original story has prompted hundreds of follow-ups, most of which talk about the “doubt” cast on Witt’s character. One talks about WItt’s “deception.” It goes on and on.

If you’re interested, take a look at this piece I wrote about a Republican political strategist accused of beating two former wives. It has court records and on-the-record statements from half a dozen or so sources corroborating the allegations.