The New York Times is unusually tight-lipped this week following the abrupt resignation of an editor who left behind only a cryptic message about his “ mistakes.”

As it turns out, Wendell Jamieson’s early exit may have something to do with a series of inappropriate communications he is reported to have had with female Times staffers.

I say “reported to have had” because it’s unclear what, exactly, happened. The Times sure isn’t being forthcoming about this entire episode, which is a bit odd considering the paper is usually Johnny-on-the-spot with allegations of workplace misconduct.

In fact, the Times even won a Pulitzer this year for its #MeToo reporting and its in-depth coverage of all the nasty, dirty harassment in places like Fox News and Vice Media. But now that another of the paper’s own may have run afoul of workplace standards, the Times has fallen uncharacteristically silent.

Transparency for thee, but not for me!

The best information that we have about the resignation comes from this Times report. However, the article on Jamieson's exit isn’t very enlightening, and it even talks about his departure, and the internal investigation that came before it, as if the paper itself doesn't have all the details.

“Wendell Jamieson … was accused of inappropriate behavior by at least three female employees, according to two people familiar with the investigation,” the paper reports.

The article, farcically titled “Women Said to Accuse Times Editor Who Resigned of Inappropriate Behavior,” adds, “The people said at least two women at The Times had alleged that Mr. Jamieson engaged in inappropriate communication.”

This is absurd. The Times knows why he resigned. It's just not telling its readers.

If only there were a Pulitzer-winning newspaper that could get to the bottom of this story!

If only there were a team of reporters who very recently won high honors from the Pulitzer committee for their #MeToo reporting that could tell us whether there’s any truth to the Jamieson allegations!

Where should we find such a team?

As if to explain the why of why we don’t know anything about a possible scandal brewing in the Times’ own living room, the report includes this line: “According to one person familiar with the investigation, the Times statement lacked detail because the women had asked that their identities not be revealed.”

Well, okay, but surely the nation’s leading paper can give us a bit more concrete than "sources say" and Jamieson’s outgoing note of resignation, which read in part, “I regret and apologize for my mistakes and leaving under these circumstances.”

The paper’s top management boasts often of the company’s efforts to be transparent. For the most part, they do that job pretty well (executive editor Dean Baquet is especially good about taking questions and responding to requests for comment). But the Times clearly has some blind spots, especially as Baquet, managing editor Joseph Kahn and Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy have all dodged questions about the Jamieson resignation.

As I said earlier this week, it’s always a bit harder to hold people accountable when it's someone on your own team.