Now this is interesting: Hollywood-centric blog The Wrap reports that, before Dylan Farrow’s letter about her alleged abuse by Woody Allen was published by Nick Kristof on his New York Times blog, the Los Angeles Times was offered the letter—and declined to publish it.

The Wrap’s article is poorly written, so it’s impossible to figure out why the paper decided not to publish it.

But the knowledge that Farrow was shopping the letter for publication is interesting, as is the choice of the LA Times; to me, it adds weight to the suspicion that the timing of all this has something to do with the Oscar potential of Allen’s film Blue Jasmine. It casts the letter’s publication in the Times in a subtly different light; this wasn’t just something that Dylan and Mia Farrow gave to their friend Nick Kristof, but something they were actively looking for a high-profile outlet to publish. Why give it to the LA Times before the New York Times? Because you want it to have an impact on Hollywood.

To be fair, shopping the letter around for publication could be innocuous—Dylan and Mia decided to make a statement, they wanted to get the word out in a way that would give it the most credibility. But it could also mean that the whole thing is a little, well, more orchestrated than Kristof implied in his column.

On another note: The Times has stated that Woody Allen contacted the paper about writing a response, and that the paper may publish it. Two things must be said: Since when is it professional to make a public statement saying that a person smeared in your newspaper has asked to respond? Because in doing so, you raise questions if Allen doesn’t respond…and if he does, I think, you are basically compelled to run that response, because how could you not, since everyone knows that you’ve said he plans to respond?

The Times is so good so much of the time. But sometimes it is shockingly amateurish.