At an event last night in Pleasantville’s Jacob Burns Film Center—that’s my local art house joint—Times critic Janet Maslin, of whom I’m generally not a fan, lambasted fellow Timesian Nick Kristoff for publishing Dylan Farrow’s letter alleging sexual abuse by Woody Allen.

According to Gawker, Maslin disclosed that Farrow had sent her story to the paper as a letter and the Times rejected it, making it the second paper, after the LA Times, to do so.

…the Times rejected, and then a columnist who is a friend of the family, decided to run it in his column, and those columnists have a lot of freedom in what they can put into columns, but I think that was a really questionable use of that space.

Maslin then charged that she thought Dylan was making these allegations because she was jealous of the attention that her brother, Ronan Farrow, was receiving, particularly through Maureen Orth’s terrible Vanity Fair profile of Mia Farrow.

One odd thing about that Vanity Fair piece, that one that ran a few months ago, was that the big news in the piece was supposed to be ‘Dylan Farrow Speaks Out’ and what happened, just purely by chance, was that the news became, ‘Ronan Farrow May Be Frank Sinatra’s Son.’ And Dylan Farrow, I happen to know this through a friend very close to the story, was very unhappy that this suddenly wasn’t about her. And I think that’s that part of why she decided to start calling attention to herself.

Deeeeeeeeeeee-licious. Things must be awkward in the corridors of the Old Gray Lady.

There’s one point about which a consensus seems to have formed (at least among reasonable people): It was poor judgment for Nick Kristof to print Farrow’s plea in its entirety, and poor judgment of the Times to let him.