Mr. Whyte said that readers of Maclean’s were informed of the potential conflicts. “When I decided to answer the subpoena I disclosed to our readers that I would appear as a witness in my capacity as a former Black employee,” Mr. Whyte said. “Ms. Amiel’s relations to the defendant have been abundantly disclosed, as has Mr. Steyn’s former employment in the Black empire.”

Mr. Whyte said that his role in the trial should not affect Maclean’s coverage, adding: “Mr. Steyn has informed me that he plans to prove his journalistic integrity by treating me twice as harshly as other witnesses.”

I'd been hoping a few brief mentions of the coke and rent boys might be enough. But, if I were going to venture a more germane criticism, I'd say that in Thursday's testimony Ken was a bit too rueful and self-deprecating and that, in response to Ms Ruder's dimestore dominatrix style of cross-examination, something a bit more combative might be more called for.

By the way, all this media navel-gazing about "conflicts of interest" ignores the obvious: as I've said before, I have no financial interest in defending Conrad and nor does Ken. He signed our paycheques, but that was long ago now. And, in my case, I have a compelling financial interest in not defending Black: I work for the successor regime at The Chicago Sun-Times.

Or, rather, I did. Late on Friday, I was informed that John Cruikshank, the publisher, had for the first time pulled my column from the paper. It was on some of the issues arising from the Black trial.

Maybe The New York Times could interview Mr Cruikshank about "conflict issues".