But at least they're finally looking around. The NYTimes may hope to redeem itself for sitting out the Bernard Kerik story in its first weeks. The paper's news and editorial departments had totally ignored the developing stories about Kerik's shady background until after he withdrew his name from consideration as Homeland Security secretary.
Maybe they're trying to get up to speed now by cutting to the quick. This morning the Times devotes 40 column inches to the questions surrounding the mysterious nanny whose immigration and tax status was used as the reason for Kerik's withdrawal.
Included among those questions is the fundamental one I posed early this past Sunday, whether in fact there ever was a nanny in the first place.
Last night, Mr. Kerik was told that skeptics in city government circles were questioning the very existence of the nanny, and he was pressed to provide any kind of evidence to document that she was real. But after taking time to consider the request, Mr. Kerik again decided to remain silent on the subject.Why do I care so much about this story? It starts with the embarassment I feel for my city that Giuliani and Kerik have at least until recently been successful in conspiring with the opportunists in Washington to ensure that two locally-notorious goons came to represent or embody 9/11 and New York. The fire of my outrage about the choice of Kerik was stoked by the uninhibited enthusiasm for the nomination expressed by New York's Democratic politicians Hillary Clinton and Charles Shumer - and the irresponsible, uncritical reporting of my hometown's largest paper.
The lights are going out, the doors are all closing; where will we look for truth, honesty and integrity now?