If you actually still have a water cooler that you gossip around, surely Monday's New York Times omnibus on Justin the drug-addled self-made underage teen porn star caught the attention of you and your Us Weekly-reading colleagues. Media critics, however, let it fly by for the most part (well, not Jack Shafer, which makes us love him even more, and the pandering CBS Public Eye blog). Even we crossed our fingers that the its moment of relevancy would pass, but alas, two days later, we can't get it out of our heads: This is the biggest piece of hypocritical bullshit the Times has run since reneging on Judy Miller. And that was, like, just a few weeks ago.

The story in question goes a little something like this: A 13-year-old boy named Justin turns his interest in technology into a web porn operation that earns him hundreds of thousands of dollars over several years, as well as a cocaine addiction. He reunites with his absentee father, who ends up going into business with Justin and arranges him to sleep with whores on camera for more paying customers. In the end, Justin gives it all up and helps the government track down his johns to "protect" other at-risk children.

Like holding editors unaccountable when reporters crap a big one, the Times has a longstanding tradition of saying one thing and doing another. Remember B's much-rebuked item accusing Fox News' Geraldo Rivera of staging a Hurricane Katrina save for the camera? It was just one of a laundry list of Times-isms coming straight out of a j-school textbook: Journalists shouldn't interfere with the story or they risk becoming the story. And we happen to agree (though perhaps we'd intervene if a man was lit on fire and we ran out of notebook paper to chronicle the horror).

So the Times has plenty of explaining to do for allowing its Enron beat reporter Kurt Eichenwald spend six months tailing Justin Berry to spit out "Through His Webcam, a Boy Joins a Sordid Online World" (and the accompanying series of sidebar items). The 6,000 words are undoubtedly a push for a Pulitzer, which just might be the only (still illigitimate) excuse for NYT editors OKing actions like persuading Justin to give up his cash-minting porn operations, cooperate with federal authorities in prosecuting skeevy old men who paid him to masturbate on camera, and see a therapist so he could one day make peace with his absentee father who, it turns out, became a short-lived business partner and pimp. And through Kurt's greased hand, Justin also lands himself immunity against child porn charges (he was 19 before he finally gave up his operations, which included exploiting other underage boys) under a deal for him to testify.

We can hate on OK! magazine for paying for its stories, but at least Sarah Ivens & Co. aren't making claims of prize-winning journalism (instead, she's making out). But the NYT – through finding Justin's legal counsel, a place to stay and other rehabilitative perks – went ahead and bought its way through a sensational story (though we can't blame Kurt for that) that may win him journalism's top prize. Let it be known, however, that there will always be an asterisk attached to any superlative. And we're going to stain it pink.

Through His Webcam, a Boy Joins a Sordid Online World [Kurt Eichenwald, NYT]
Documenting a Crime That Thrives on Anonymity [Kurt Eichenwald, NYT]
Where the Credit Card Trail Leads [Kurt Eichenwald, NYT]
A Shadowy Trade Migrates to the Web [Kurt Eichenwald, NYT]
Making a Connection With Justin [Kurt Eichenwald, NYT]
Related: The New York Times Legal Aid Society [Jack Shafer, Slate]