Spring 1995: Crimson Editorial Chair Daniel Altman is charged with unethical journalistic conduct by avowed Crimson foe Randall A. Fine. The news--a public release by Fine of an old personal note from Altman--was recent. But the issue was two years old and there was no actual unethical conduct, just a questionable offer that was never fulfilled.

News? I'm not sure. The Crimson has run old news before, particularly about Fine. Whether it's a good policy or not is debatable.

I, as a news executive, said we should run the story. Lots of others said we shouldn't. In case any of you didn't read Wednesday's paper, we did.

I thought my best judgment could be reached by removing the personal issues of internal relationships and plugging another name into the equation.

I tried Josh Liston. It worked. Substituting Liston's name for Altman's, I knew The Crimson would run the story.

Whether or not that would have been a wise or fair decision is another issue, and perhaps one I'll take up sometime.

But I felt strongly, three days ago, that The Crimson could and should cover itself as it would any other organization, that in not doing so The Crimson was not doing its best to serve its readers.

Now I wonder whether information from an obviously biased source--whether or not the story itself was fair--is really better than no information at all.