Tale of rich and famous leaves a bad taste

I promised myself I wouldn’t do it, but I did. When a friend mentioned that Ruth Madoff was doing an interview on “60 Minutes,” I felt disgusted with the fact that a once-distinguished news program would give her airtime. A quality TV show, which over the years featured the commentary of such greats as Walter Cronkite, Eric Seva-reid and Charles Kuralt, was pandering to our basest appetites.

Mea culpa. The night the show aired, my husband said he was going into the den to watch. He knew I disapproved. I was in the kitchen, where we have a tiny TV, which, as it turned out, was big enough. Something (base appetite) made me turn to “60 Minutes” in time to see Morley Safer soft-balling questions to Mrs. M.

Why the sudden wish to go public with her story? Why, after years have passed, did her son, Andrew, and his girlfriend agree to be interviewed? Everyone, it seems, is writing a book, and they need publicity. According to interviews, the girlfriend, Catherine Hooper, will profit from the book if anyone buys it.

The “60 Minutes” interview exemplified what we learned in Psych 101: folie a deux. Remember? It’s when two people share a delusion. In this case it’s a folie a trois, with Ruth and the boys claiming they did not know what Bernie was up to, even as he scammed thousands of people with his record-breaking Ponzi scheme. Well, maybe it isn’t a delusion. Maybe the Madoffs aren’t deluded; maybe they’re lying, having had plenty of time to get their story straight.

Another possibility: They’re telling the truth. Andrew Madoff, despite working for and profiting from his father’s business all his life, had no idea it was a Ponzi scheme. Ruth Madoff, despite working as a bookkeeper in the business years ago, found all those big numbers just too much to understand.

But why, if you’re innocent, would you possibly write books about the experience and go on television in such a transparent effort to profit from the story of other people’s devastating losses?