You have to give Nicholas Kristof his due, the man is not totally incapable of feeling. After using the New York Times for his personal vigilante crusade to take down the men who instigated the anthrax attacks in 2002, Kristof has been feeling guilt pangs for perhaps being over-zealous with his information to the FBI.

This is relevant now because the man that Kristof originally fingered as the culprit, Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, was exonerated while the purported real criminal, Bruce Ivins, recently committed suicide before he was able to be tried. And Nicholas bucks it up like a true gentleman and issues a public retraction and apology to Hatfill, albeit eight years after the fact.

But Nick isn't content to let the matter drop, and wants the American public to walk a mile in his shoes with these fun hypothetical scenarios. What would you do if you were presented with questionable information of the "maybe wrong" variety but realized you were perhaps sitting on a big story?

Hypothetically speaking, of course, what would you do if:

You learn that the local high school girls’ basketball coach has been repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct and has left three previous schools under a cloud of suspicion. The school authorities seem paralyzed and are encouraging the teacher to move again before the next school year, but the police have not been involved. The coach says he is leaving the area and probably teaching. He pleads with you to let the matter drop and hints that a scandal might drive him to kill himself. Do you write anything?

There should be a whole book of these questions that they pass out in Journalism 101. The line between professional and personal integrity can sometimes be murky, to be sure, but is using an exercise from Donnie Darko really the best method for pleading your case?

"No Duh" is a product of fear, Kristof.