Former NY Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald — best known for his coverage of the Enron scandal for the Times and his book on the scandal, Conspiracy of Fools — penned this Times article (related blog post here) over a year ago that told the sad story of a teen-ager who was seduced by online pedophiles.
Well, fresh from making a mint off of writing about Enron’s alleged non-disclosures, it appears that Eichenwald has his own non-disclosure problem relating to this story, at least according to this NY Times Editor’s Note:

An article by Kurt Eichenwald on Dec. 19, 2005, reported on a teenage boy’s sexual exploitation on the Internet, and an accompanying Reporter’s Essay by Mr. Eichenwald published on nytimes.com explained the details of his initial contact with the subject.
The essay was intended to describe how Mr. Eichenwald persuaded Justin Berry, then 18, to talk about his situation. But Mr. Eichenwald did not disclose to his editors or readers that he had sent Mr. Berry a $2,000 check. Mr. Eichenwald said he was trying to maintain contact out of concern for a young man in danger, and did not consider himself to be acting as a journalist when he sent the check.
Mr. Eichenwald explained in his essay that, at the outset, he did not identify himself to Mr. Berry as a reporter. After they met in person, but before he decided that he wanted to write an article, Mr. Eichenwald said he told the youth that the money would have to be returned. Times policy forbids paying the subjects of articles for information or interviews. A member of Mr. Berry’s family helped repay the $2,000.
The check emerged as part of a criminal proceeding involving Mr. Berry in which a Michigan man is charged with criminal sexual conduct, enticing a minor to commit immoral acts and distributing child pornography. The trial began yesterday.
The check should have been disclosed to editors and readers, like the other actions on the youth’s behalf that Mr. Eichenwald, who left The Times last fall, described in his article and essay.

This New York Magazine article reports on Eichenwald’s testimony as a witness in the criminal proceeding and Eichenwald’s long explanation with related reader comments over at PoynterOnline is also quite interesting. Meanwhile, the Gawker weighs in with a snarky post here. As the story continues to gather steam, MediaWire Daily chimes in earlier this week with this interesting aspect of Eichenwald’s payment to Berry, and this FAIR article reports on a kerfuffle that recently arose between Eichenwald, the Times, Slate and journalist Debbie Nathan over investigating online child porn in violation of child predator laws, which Gawker is reporting will result in a $10 million defamation lawsuit by Eichenwald against Nathan. Finally, Michelle Malkin piles on here.