In today’s NYT, Murray Chass writes that the HOF Veterans Committee’s not choosing any candidate for enshrinement “demonstrates that the system is working well.” Noting that all players on the VC ballot had spent 15 years on the primary writer’s ballot without election, he asks, “Why should anyone think the committee is obliged to alter those results?” Why? Because the writers (that is, Chass’s colleagues) make oversights. That’s why the committee exists in the first place. But what’s truly amazing here is what Chass does not tell his readers: that he’s a (non-voting) member of the Veterans Committee. That seems like a pretty massive conflict of interest to leave unmentioned. Paging the Ethicist…..