You'll have to forgive me, I'm confused.

A year or six months ago, my various friendslist/comments feeds across social media were crammed with comment on the Leveson enquiry. From the moment the story broke - that reporters working for News International had hacked voicemail messages and then the organisation had covered it up to preserve their reputation - there was a pretty constant strream of comment about how this rendered the company not a 'fit and proper' organisation to hold a major role in the UK media. I could barely turn on a computer without seeing a dozen links to articles from the Guardian about how this failure of professional oversight meant that News International were not - there's that phrase again - 'fit and proper'.

The odd thing is, that over the last few weeks worth of revelations an accusations about how Jimmy Savile - and by all reports others - spent most of the last half century fondling their way around the care homes of the country and the BBC covered it up to preserve their reputation (and, it seems, brushed accusations under the carpet as Savile was a very valuable property during the 60's, 70's and 80's), but the comments threads have been utterly silent about any suggestions of questions over fitness or properness beyond sober observations about how we should wait for all the facts before passing judgement, etc.

I mean, what? Is everyone who was commenting on News International six months ago just really busy at the moment? Or is there some subtle distinction I'm missing here? You'll have to explain, because I'm confused.