Remember those old novel and movie murder mysteries where the simplest of solutions was always that “the butler did it”? In recent times it has become popular for figures in scandals and crimes of various types to edit that old saw to “the media did it.”

In a time when so many people will try any gimmick to avoid personal responsibility for their own actions, it is so simple to blame the media, including both informative and entertainment television.

One of the latest public figures to leap onto the “media did it” bandwagon is Kenneth Lay. He’s the controversial Enron founder who says it was the media, not the machinations of him or his cohorts, that undercut his failed company’s strengths in the weeks before it crashed. He contends the media unfairly spotlighted problems at Enron that he says were already cleaned up.

It’s Lay’s contention that the media coverage of the Enron fiasco, in which he was the key player, pushed the firm toward bankruptcy protection as investor confidence was obliterated in October and November of 2001.

“Obviously, that was a devastating blow to the financial markets and us,” Lay told jurors in his ongoing fraud and conspiracy trial.

Lay and compatriots such as Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron executive, have attacked Andrew Fastow, former chief financial officer. They say Fastow and others skimmed millions in secret operations. Fastow told jurors as a prosecution witness that he met with Lay the day after Skilling resigned and warned of billions of dollars in looming writedowns of overvalued assets. Lay has labeled Fastow a traitor, a liar and a crook and says Fastow never told him anything like that.

All the while in this legal circus, think of the thousands of Enron investors and former employees who had their lives shattered at least financially by the collapse of a company Lay and his sidekicks contended was a major winner, a sure thing, a place in which to invest. Doesn’t Lay accept even a little responsibility for that? Unfortunately, too many senior executives, in many fields, try to use this argument.

One of Lay’s major defenses has been a plea of ignorance about what was happening. Here was a dedicated, competent and intelligence executive who was misled by people in the company and wound up a victim of cruel circumstance. Wrote USA Today of the situation: “At his trial in Houston, the former Enron CEO tells his story which goes something like this: ‘Good man takes over reins of company in 2001 and soon finds himself surrounded by thieves and liars who bring him, and his company down. (Outside the courtroom he sometimes plays another part based on more recent events – innocent man framed by overzealous prosecutors).”

Many find glaring flaws in his logic and responses and have the figures to back up such skepticism.

USA Today admits that by some quirk of fate, the jury might find Lay not guilty as charged, that he did not figure as charged in the unraveling of the company.

Adds USA Today: “Even so, his good-man-in-a-bad-world tale is a bit hard to stomach. As testimony, it belittles the intelligence of the jury. As a performance, it lacks the believability to draw audiences in. Don’t bother with this one, not even when it comes out on video.”

Unless, of course, the video sells and helps Lay pay off some huge debts. Then would “the media” be his hero or villain?