For folk outside Scotland, here's a synopsis.
There are a few things that struck me about this story. One is the fact that I read about it first on Twitter courtesy of @journodave.
That underlined to me that Dave Winer is right. Twitter is a news system.
The papers had the story on 3 March, the morning after @journodave - Dave Wylie to give him his Sunday name - broke it on Twitter.
Here's what Dave himself has to say about what followed.
One thing I'd disagree with Dave about is this point: "The end of Steven Purcell’s political career is an example of tenacious journalism but also of a weak political system unprepared to investigate those in high civic places with very public problems."
There may have been tenacious journalism in the days following the resignation - certainly The Scotsman got on the case quickly and dug out the line about 'chemical dependency' from sources in the council.
But previous to that? I think there must have been a real lack of tenacity.
Dave might disagree. In this post he says: "Allegations about Steven Purcell have made the rounds for years but they have been kept out of the papers because there has never been, to my knowledge, any solid evidence of what he has allegedly done. Journalists have a burden of proof."
I agree. But when the story eventually surfaced, just a few days'
journalistic endeavour uncovered this.
So the proof was there. If Scottish journalists heard the rumours lang syne, why didn't they start looking for the proof then?
What does it say about the Scottish media that we failed to get this story out until it was published on their terms by people acting on Steven Purcell's behalf?
What can we learn from this?