Clay Risen's suggested solution is probably the correct one in terms of objective journalism, even if it might make for a less compelling article; when I read the part about Francis pinning Hoffman against the car, I instantly questioned the journalist's objectivity (and also thought she should've hit him harder in the face.)

I would be concerned if Hoffman had neglected to mention the scuffle, but as it came out early in the story, I knew from the start how she would approach the subject, so I think it was totally fair. (And yes, she should have hit him harder in the face.)

She didn't have the turd arrested -- now THAT shows SOME journalistic detachment. Also, she described the events she saw as she saw them. "Objective" (in this case, "without a negative bias") doesn't have to mean "sanitized." What was she supposed to do, find some socially redeeming value in all this titty-waving? What's the "good" side of Francis? If the story is negative, tell it like it is.

I suppose much depends on what kind of article this was meant to be. Is it one person's experience, warts and all... an editorial, investigative piece like Arnold Diaz's "Shame On You" or something like Geraldo's old 20/20 TV segments? I enjoyed the piece for what it was, and I agree that if a story is negative, it should be told like it is. I just wonder if Risen's suggestion of having a different reporter include Hoffman's account of Francis' assault would be less biased, yet still portray the negative aspects. Having the writer who got assaulted present the story seems iffy. Maybe it's impossible to present news in an unbiased fashion these days, if it ever was... I dunno.

Hey, if she can't write about the subject after being assualted by such a sleazeball, then no one should be allowed to write anything at all about our current Presidential administration.

Kicks in the balls all around.