can never correct the injustice done tonhim. No court exists in which he cannconfront his accusers, most of whom arennow dead in any case. He cannot ask tonhave the file destroyed, for then he couldnnever discover the truth: “how couldnone ever,” he asks, “challenge an anonymousninformant whose identity hadnbeen permanently removed?” Thus hencan only repair to the court of publicnopinion, wifli this book as his brief Andnyet there is surely more to be said of hisncase than this.nKimball has spent nearly all his adultnlife as a working journalist or a teacher ofnjournalism. In a curious way his filenillustrates many of the faults whichnpk^e contemporary investigative journalism,nespecially of the “advocacy” sort.nFor instance, the file investigatorsnactively sought evidence to demonstratenthat Kimball had procommunistnIhe feminist JnquisttioHnl.ong’,1 li-adinj; I’cminisi.Jcun KcthkcnI’.l.shuiin ri-i-L-iUly had ihis lo say in ThenPrti^ressii’e about ihc vituperativenri-.spoii.sc :iiiK)n}< .sistt-r k-minist.s to hernsuiiining su^rMion “lli:il a suh.stuiitivc’nvision of family life is essential to ournluimanily”:nir OIK’ (loo ii(>l }(id andnproKri”>sir nil the mixed ihiits of sexualnlilierai 1(111 :iiid:illemalive iiilinialeuiran}^-menlsn… if, addilioiully. one insists lliatnthere i<> niueh thai is humanly vital,nniorallv sifiniiieani. aiul politicallynimportant in inherited images of thenfamily… then one imi.st lie piv)iai-d fornaiionslau]^il oferirieismnIf one is a member of the intelleetiialnelite, as I am. and a feminist thinker tonl-KMit. one’s eriticism invites eritieism ofnhad faith and siig);estions that one isnliving aid and eomfort to the enemy.nKilt who is this ‘enemy’? Not men Itnappears that tlie real worry is othernwomen.n20inChronicles of Culturensympathies (nobody ever accused himnof party membership), and thereforenthey gravitated toward sources whonwould tell them what they wished tonhear. They clearly tended to avoid thosenwho knew Kimball well and spoke positivelynof him, and as Kimball himselfnnotes, “an informant, even a skillednjournalist, is always somewhat at thenmercy of the inquiring visitor.” Manynwho have given interviews to advocacynjournalists would sign that statementnwith a vengeance. Advocacy journalistsnusually know in advance the patternnthey wish to bring out in a story. Thenpattern is determined by their politicalnconvictions, and the story is effective tonthe extent it juxtaposes right and wrongnas black and white, and not as the variousnshades of gray characteristic of actualnreality. Even Kimball admits that he hasnadopted such an approach: in recalling anLlBl.RAL Cl’MlKlQnMs. I’Mslilain appears lo have stumblednaer(i.ss li’niinism’s owTi dirty little secret:nas much as the most chauvinistic patriarch,nfeminists wani “to keep women inntheir place” and will persecute to keepn(hem there. The as,saul( upon Ms. LIshtuinnand others who even hint at departurenfrom feminist orthodoxy will doubtlessncontinue. lUii tho.se who spe^irhead thisnself-righteuus assault ought really tonmove their headquarters out of Newn•^’ork, where they are currently ensconced,nto a location a bit to the north.nSalem offers .such a congenial setting fornwitch-hunts. [_!nnnStrike piece he did for Time he comments:n”I wrote the Allis-Chalmers storyn… pretty much as I saw it: an imyielditignlocal management using every means atnits disposal to avoid dealing with ann’outside’ union.” Kimball probably knewnthe “truth” about the strike before heneven looked at the facts; in his world itnwas highly unlikely that a union could bengenuinely to blame for a strike. The file investigatorsnsimply followed an analogousnpolicy in pursuing their investigations.nAgain, Kimball justifiably complainsnthat the file investigators made nonattempt to review his published writingsnas a source of his opinions. But thennanyone who has called a press conferencenat which he distributed a carefiillynworded and informative statement onnsome subject knows that journalists innattendance will pay scant notice to thenwritten statement in their hands andnitistead ask questions about some peripheralntrivia which happen to interestnthem. Moreover, when journalists donobtain the facts, they often misunderstandnthem. Kimball is rarely guilty ofnthis, but in one instance he clearlynmisinterprets an important passage fromnhis file to fit in with his general thesis.nLess careful journalists than he do thisnmore frequently.nJVimball comments that he hadnalways hoped that he lived under angovernment which would protect then”common man” from “lasting damage tonreputation”: and reputation is at issuenhere, after all. Unlike official investigations,nadvocacy journalism not onlynutilizes anonymous sources (the filendoes not, although many sources havenbeen rendered anonymous to Kimballnby the censor’s pencil), it also publishesnits findings widely, to the “lasting damage”nof many reputations. Kimball’s file,nby contrast, received very limited cfrculationnuntil he himself wrote this book,nand had a similarly limited effect uponnhis general reputation. From this point ofnview, then, the work of the file investigatorsnWas much less reprehensiblenthan that of advocacy journalists.n