On Sunday, The New York Times published a story in its "Vows" section about two people who left their respective spouses for each other. The paper did not ask the couple's exes for comment. Whoops!
No doubt you are already familiar with the Times' edgy "Vows" column from Sunday, about the homewreckers? Carol Anne Ridell and John Partilla, who left their respective spouses for one another? It was very... well, something. I don't know. Weird. People were mad! So mad that Partilla is maybe thinking it was not a good idea to have his messy personal life be the subject of a big Sunday splash:
Partilla defended the couple's decision to share their story of how they walked out on their former spouses to be with one another. He told Page Six, "We were proud and happy to marry and legitimize our relationship and move forward. We can't control other people's judgments."
But, he conceded, "I think if we had had an indication afterwards of the nerve it would have struck, we obviously would not have shared our life in any way publicly."
"No, I wasn't contacted or interviewed or given any opportunity to opine on any of it, including having my seven-year-old daughter's picture in the paper," says Bob Ennis, former husband of TV reporter Carol Anne Riddell. It hardly needs to be said that Ennis, a media executive who has held high-level jobs at IAC and News Corp., feels he should have had that opportunity.
"The primary story here is not that interesting," he says. "People lie and cheat and steal all the time. That's a fact of life. But rarely does a national news organization give them an unverified megaphone to whitewash it."
(Partilla's ex-wife Karla Tafrate, meanwhile, has declined to comment besides acknowledging that she read the story.) Ennis kind of has a point! I mean, if the Times is really going to write what I assume was pitched as a sort of... "isn't love messy" column, let's make it actually messy. Let's get some vengeful exes up in there! Let's Scenes from a Marriage this thing!
But, alas, Ennis won't even pony up the dirt. You can't accuse the Times of "whitewashing" if you're not going to tell us what was whitewashed over, bro. Not cool. We want specifics! Timelines! Intercepted voicemails! Embarrassing photographs!
Oh well. At least Ennis has the right motivation:
"Maybe The New York Times has forgotten, but New York can still be a dangerous town for children of wealthy people."
Yep, the real danger this article poses to the kids is the possibility that they might be kidnapped and murdered.