We are currently into day 11 of the breaking of the Air Enron scandal. To date, we have seen:
- Three official statements from the city DOI, all of which directly contradicted:
- Several mad-dash-to-safety statements by the owners of Air America
- An official investigation launched by Eliott Spitzer into the misappropriation of funds by Gloria Wise
- Zero mentions of any kind in the New York Times of somewhere around a million dollars being diverted from the funds of a New York based charity into the coffers of a New York based radio conglomerate.
By contrast, what do we find on the front page of the Newspaper of Record? Peter Jennings has died. Which, although certainly something that deserves a mention, was a surprise to absolutely no one. A story about the alleged abuse of terrorists. Which means that the total of these stories is approaching the total number of detained terrorists. No mentions of Air America or Gloria Wise.
On the editorial page? A mandatory daily article about Karl Rove (may we humbly remind you that there have been precisely zero official statements from government investigators in the Karl Rove case). An editorial about corruption which surprisingly has nothing to do with Air Enron. No mentions of Air America or Gloria Wise.
Not to be deterred, we shall examine the local opinions page. Surely this is worth a mention there? Nope. But a glowing editorial praising the effects of the indoor smoking ban is front and center.
Every day that the Times allows this to go by is another day they are tacitly saying that defrauding a public charity is no big deal, so long as it is done by those with a liberal agenda. Every day the bloggers and other national newspapers discover this story while the Times remains silent, the virtually non-existent credibility of the Grey Lady takes another serious hit.
We're just here manning the clock.
There is one other thing that I'd like to point out about this whole situation. If it's true that the new ownership of Air America is under no legal obligation to repay the loan in question, then why is the DOI setting guidelines for repayment and further issuing public statements expressing dismay that those guidelines are being ignored? Seems to me that if the claims of Piquant LLC were true that they were legally scot-free, the DOI would be saying something that, you know, sort of closely resembled that, rather than publicizing the terms of repayment.
Perhaps the reason that Piquant is defying the DOI's order is that they simply don't have the money to make the payment. Which would certainly make sense if they can't afford to pay their staffers, as Brian Maloney theorizes today. Yuck.
At this point, I am ready to offer a bold prediction. A la Eason Jordan, the first mention of this story we will find in the New York Times is when Air America actually folds under - yet again placing the MSM in the unenviable position of reporting the "shocking" conclusion to a story that they have studiously ignored. I can almost feel pity for them.