The thing is, there is not a whole bunch of "There" there.
Smith suggests that Farrow sees himself as a crusading reporter with an attitude, rather than an ideology free automaton, something which Farrow freely admits, so this is not what one would call a big reveal.
I think that there are a number of reasons that this story might have run.
The most banal reason for this would be that the priesthood at the The New York Times is simply offended by Farrow's success and notoriety for what they would see as garbage journalism.
They are the "Karens" of journalism, and this is a profoundly "Karen" moment for them.
While this is a behavior that is typical of the Times hive mind, it does not typically end up in the news section. It typically ends up in the the snark sections, OP/ED or media criticism, and not in news.
A more laudable, but by no means laudable, motivation might they want to throw Farrow off of his stride because they have a competing scoop, and they want to get there first, so they pulled this out of their back pocket. (A stick in his bicycle spokes, so to speak.)
Not nice, but journalism ain't tiddly winks.
Assuming this is not a product of the two above scenarios, then we need to go a little bit tinfoil hat, and conclude that they have gotten word of a story that they (whoever "they" are) never want to see the light of day.
I don't buy this, but if it is either hyper competitive journalism or a conspiracy theory, then the likely stories would cover 3 general areas:
- A revelation related to the crimes of the late Jeffrey Epstein.
- A revelation related to someone close to the publisher of the New York Times. (tinfoil hat only)
- A revelation related to sexual misconduct that rhymes with Poseidon.
Note that I have what might be the worst prediction this side of my dad, so I'm probably wrong.