Several folks have sent me links to this article in the New York Times. In it, media columnist Ben Smith dares to question whether Ronan Farrow is as good a journalist as his fame suggests. Says Smith, "At times, he does not always follow the typical journalistic imperatives of corroboration and rigorous disclosure, or he suggests conspiracies that are tantalizing but he cannot prove."
Curiously, Smith does not delve at all into the scandal that seems to be of primary importance to Farrow: The relentless attacks on his alleged father, Woody Allen. Might that not tell us volumes about what Farrow thinks constitutes solid proof or relevant evidence? So I don't know what to think of any of this.