Things have been crazy since last I wrote.

My column was bumped last Friday (and eventually crumped--"news-speak" for a piece that is never published despite good intentions) because of The Crimson's extended coverage of the Gina Grant controversy.

It's a nice, but bewildering, experience to be part of an organization that breaks national news.

When reporter Sewell Chan found that Grant's admission was ostensibly rescinded not because she killed her mother but because she lied to her alumni interviewer, people at The Crimson were excited.

Already, Crimson executives had been among the many Harvard students interviewed by national media about the case. And already, information gathered by The Crimson had been "picked-up" by major news organizations across the country.

It was the kind of week dayslotters--news executives responsible for brainstorming and assigning stories each day--dream of.

Reporters were immediately on the trail of the "truth," (I use quotes because few know what that is, really--particularly in this case when so few are talking) using their familiarity with Harvard and its ways to break the administration's steely silence on the issue.

The Crimson was out with the pack of veteran professional journalists following the story, and at many points it was well ahead.

There was a lot to be proud of.

But the week was tainted by a few serious questions. (Beyond those concerning Grant's future--I can't do much about it so I'll save that kind of discussion for page two.)

Perhaps some of those questions were only serious to me, but I suspect there are at least a few curious readers existing somewhere.

I wonder whether The Crimson's community of readers is concerned with the question of when and why those who report the news should make it as well.

I certainly asked myself that question several times last week as I watched Crimson President Andrew Wright explain on national television why Gina Grant should not have remained a Harvard admit.

Certainly Wright did not seek the publicity for himself or for The Crimson--he was invited to speak by dozens of local and national print, radio and TV news outlets.

Whether he should have agreed to do so is an interesting issue.

At first, news organizations were interested in The Crimson's editorial position, which supported Harvard's decision.

For comment on that, in my opinion, the media should have turned to Editorial Chair Daniel Altman. And some did.

Altman chaired the meeting at which that editorial position was decided. He knew best what motivated supporters and dissenters.

And, more importantly, he was in a position to speak for The Crimson's editorial page without the risk of coming across as a spokesperson for The Harvard Crimson, a news organization.

In speaking for The Crimson on a matter that the news board, of which Wright is a member, was still addressing, Wright may have put the news credibility of The Crimson in jeopardy.

Anyone in America who cared to find out would have known that the Crimson supported the administration on this issue.

So when Chan's article appeared last Thursday detailing how the administration came to its decision, it may have looked to some as if there had been foul play.

There wasn't.

Still, on national TV last Thursday morning CBS's Paula Zahn asked Wright whether The Crimson was being manipulated by the administration.

Wright, in good faith, answered no.

But how many of you were wondering the same thing?