The Times, along with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley — a Republican who, like the Gray Lady, has been vocal of late about the dangers of big, bad, lightly regulated hedge funds — is now focused on snaring not Mack himself but the SEC for giving special treatment to Mack, a GOP donor who was on the verge of becoming CEO of Morgan Stanley when Aguirre wanted to take his testimony. The Sunday story cites e-mails that Aguirre received from his SEC bosses that noted Mack's "political clout" and the "juice" of his lawyers with officials at the agency when Aguirre asked for permission to speak to Mack.

To be sure, only a fool would argue that Mack's stature and connections didn't play a role in the SEC's decision to back away from him in the Pequot matter. After all, what regulatory agency isn't influenced by political connections and a never-ending network of who-knows-who? Plus, it's easy to imagine that the SEC would have hauled in for questioning someone of lesser stature than Mack based on the same thin evidence that Aguirre presented here — after all, an interview is hardly the same as an indictment.

But the fact that Aguirre's evidence is so thin is problematic for the Times' overheated coverage of this hedge fund "scandal." It's hard to get worked up over an investigation that didn't happen when the only proof of potential wrongdoing by the two main suspects is the fact that they are friends. (We bet they even play golf together. Quelle horreur!) But the Times is convinced that hedge funds are hotbeds of insider trading, that the SEC is looking the other way and that it's going to end badly. Some of that may be true. Still, there has to be a better way of exposing those ills than throwing a bunch of half-baked accusations at the wall and hoping a few stick. If you want the glory of being first to call the fall of hedge funds, you've got to do the work.

As the Times leads a jihad against the evil of hedge funds, BusinessWeek continues its crusade against rolling-in-the-dough private equity. Less than three months after bringing us the sensational headline "Buy It, Strip It, Then Flip It" on its story about the initial public offering of Hertz Corp. by its buyout owners, BusinessWeek strikes again with the cover story "Gluttons at the Gate: How private equity is using slick new tricks to gorge on corporate assets." So, BusinessWeek, tell us how you really feel.

Inside is the usual smorgasbord of complaints about how buyout shops do business, from how much debt they lay on their companies to the "dubious" fees they charge to the record dividends they "extract." "Some private equity firm executives are being investigated for outright fraud," the magazine adds. Whom is it referring to? John A. Orecchio of AA Capital Partners Inc., a Chicago firm with $194 million under management. Not exactly Henry Kravis and his ilk.

Still, an indictment is an indictment. The problem is, BusinessWeek, like the Times in the Mack case, can blow lots of charges into the air, but it can't begin to close the case. Yes, multiples are rising. True, buyout deals have gotten bigger. But even BusinessWeek feels compelled to qualify nearly every sensational charge. The story leaves the impression that BusinessWeek, like the Times, just wants to position itself for when, inevitably, something bad does happen.—Yvette Kantrow