The NYT big story about New York Governor David Paterson — focusing on his "closest confidant" David Johnson — is pretty much of a fizzle.

But what's the big deal here? He rose quickly, there are 2 felony drug arrests that date back to his teen years, and there were 3 "altercations with women, two of which led to calls to the police." And:

Some heads of significant government agencies have said they feel they have to go through Mr. Johnson, often known as D. J., to get to the governor. And several current and former administration officials said that Mr. Johnson’s dressing down of the governor’s Washington office in September contributed to the departure of several seasoned people from the office.

“I started getting messages from D. J. telling me to call certain players in my industry,” said one former official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the governor.

Mr. Johnson, the official said, started to manage administration press conferences, dictating the order and seating of speakers and calling agencies to request they draft statements on particular issues.

“We were all quite surprised about D. J. taking more of a policy role,” another former official said. “It seemed like it was a long way to come in a short period of time for a guy who had been the governor’s wing man.”

Is this the big exposé we've been hearing about? Saturn Smith says:

See, this piece was supposed to be a whopper... It was supposed, over the past two weeks, to be The Story that was going to force New York's inefficient, disorganized governor into becoming the second governor in a row to resign....

... I'm kind of hard pressed to do much more than give a cheer for a guy who has risen from being twice arrested for drug crimes as a teenager in in early-90s Spanish Harlem to being the closest aide of New York's governor....

So then, the big deal here must be the behavior towards women. And yes, it might be appalling. You can kind of sense that the New York Times wanted to just write, THIS IS APPALLING. Unfortunately, they were unable to do so....

The Times is trying to show a pattern of behavior without anything to go on but the word of one witness against the word of several others....

There's an extended section in the middle that is comprised almost completely of strange, neutral quotes about Johnson and how he's recently been seen to take over -- ably -- management of many political and even policy-oriented tasks. No one is quoted saying anything blatantly negative about Johnson's influence in the entire 2,175 word piece....

The piece then charges forward with some stunningly sour-grapes sounding quote...

Was there more to this story that wasn't fit to print?