Reuters points out a remarkable contradiction that had also struck me:

In stark contrast to the generally positive line taken by the main editorial boards, most of the country's leading newspaper columnists slammed Martin's performance.

Thus, while the Globe, the Star, and the Post all agreed that Martin made a compelling case, or at least that he should be pitied, the columnists at all these papers were less sympathetic. See, for example, Chantal Hebert's notably clear-eyed piece in the Star. Even Jeffrey Simpson, though he finds the whole scandal a bit of a bore, was unimpressed. The Post's John Ivison wasn't buying it, either. Fascinating. I wouldn't read too much into it, however. I think it's just that editorial boards tend to be the kinds of places that are impressed by vague appeals to "let all the facts come out." It sounds very sober and responsible, and as a former editorial writer I know that nothing is more calculated to make an editorialist go weak at the knees than a call to "avoid undue haste," unless it's "let us put aside partisan rancour."