I’ve been irritated by this before but was moved to write and send–probably pointlessly to the tower of silence on 8th Avenue–the following to the Times’ Public Editor:

In calling for Senator Robert Menendez to step down, the Times makes a mockery of the notion of “innocent until proven guilty”, crossing the line of opinionated fairness by effectively buying one side of the story, which is what an indictment is. It is the government’s view of the facts. In the editorial, the Times has acted as the jury—and one that didn’t bother to give the other side a chance to present a different view of the facts before calling the accused a “disgraced politician”. “Disgraced” because…of the filing of an indictment? Plenty of people have subsequently been found not guilty—wrongly accused—when a government’s case is found to be specious and without foundation; it is, after all, easy for the government to obtain an indictment.

I noted this concern previously on Twitter when the Times also editorialized on Jan 22nd, “Speaker Sheldon Silver Should Resign From New York Assembly” (In fairness, the text of that editorial was less explicit then the headline). Similar to Menendez, Silver deserved to make his case in court—and not be bum-rushed out of office. In both cases, as was true in the Sen.Ted Stevens case, subsequent exoneration does not usually repair the political damage.

For what it’s worth, I am no fan of Senator Menendez. I think he should be sent packing by voters for a whole host of policy positions (the most prominent being his anachronistic hostility to the Cuban government). And Silver, as Speaker, ran the Assembly in a dysfunctional fashion (which does not presume legally corrupt acts) and the state would be better off if voters had dispatched him years ago. But, that’s up to the voters in a democracy. I think Times readers deserve to know what the standard is for the presumption of innocence, and whether that standard should preclude a call to leave office before the facts are proven.