The John Edwards missed-story list grows!
I can think now of five separate angles the mainstream news outlets are missing with the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter scandal story. In other words, by not writing about the charges originally—airing them out and letting their audience assess their validity—the media is now in the position of stamping down not one story, but five. What tangled webs we are weaving!
Once the story hits the front pages, as it inevitably will, we’re going to hear all the excuses as to why reputable news outlets couldn’t find their way to telling their readers patently interesting news about a major political figure that was widely available on the web. This arrogance will help reinforce the perceptions in the audience that the media is not always looking out for their best interests and continue the move to alternative outlets. I’m as devoted a follower of the traditional media as can be, but this willful non-disclosure makes me want to scream.
As yet, the cable channels have been somewhat shielded from this; it’s too bad there’s not a growing web-only political talk show that has been tracking this. (I can’t find any mentions of it on bloggingheads.tv via its search box, but I don’t know how reliable the search engine is.)
Here are the stories, with the various points to hit in each included:
1) The National Enquirer’s creepy vendetta. How the tabloids work … the difference among the Enquirer, the Examiner and the Weekly World News … the Enquirer’s history of accuracy or inaccuracy … the logistics and costs of such a months-long effort … who owns it? … who calls the shots?
2) Why the mainstream press has dodged the story. The backstage timidity … the concern for Elizabeth Edwards … the Ick Factor … the inconsistency of whose adulterous affairs get written about and whose do not.
3) The silence of the lambs: Not anything you wouldn’t expect, but it’s worth noting that the the nation’s press critics and ombudsmen are quiet, too. Howie Kurtz, this is tailor made for you: Only you can investigate why you haven’t written this story! The one exception I know of is Jack Shafer in Slate, which has gone at the story several ways. But where is Tim Rutten? The Observer? Even Salon has offered only one tepid account of the Enquirer story. Which brings us to …
4) The compromised intellectual honesty of the liberal blogosphere. Kausfiles is linking to a Daily Kos regular who got his posting privileges disappeared after he started writing about the issue:
I’ve been posting at Kos for a long time. As more news about Edwards has come out, I followed up with more posts which were also the subject of a large number of comments. All of them looked at the Edwards situation from my point of view; that is, a liberal who is concerned about the implications this story may have in November.
Now I’m banned. I can’t write about ANYTHING at Kos. Can’t comment, can’t post a non-Edwards piece. Nothing.
Don’t we all agree that you get the facts out, then fight about what should be done or what it all means? Wait, we don’t?
I thought I had five different ideas. I’m missing one…
5) Oh, yeah: Did John Edwards cheat on his wife and get another woman pregnant? Edwards hasn’t substantively addressed the Enquirer’s charges.* The most recent debacle, according to both the tabloid and a corroborating story by foxnews.com, found him blockaded in a basement bathroom of the Beverly Hill luxury hotel in the early morning hours after he was caught by the Enquirer reporters allegedly paying Rielle Hunter and the infant in question a visit. Arguments about the Edwards’ privacy don’t hold water: Elizabeth already knows about it; Edwards was a presidential candidate; and the story is already out there. All the mainstream news outlets are doing by not writing about it is undermining their credibility.
In the meantime, Kausfiles is a good place to check for updates, as is Deceiver.
* In the post-Lewinsky Era, the cheating pol can no longer make a denial and then run off stage. The press needs to ask detailed questions to make sure he’s not, uh, isn’t lying like a dog. If Edwards doesn’t like that standard, he could call up Bill Clinton and complain to him about it!
17 Comments so far
Leave a reply
but… what if it simply isn’t true?
Hi, thanks for the mention…
To George and wonder what if it simply isn’t true I’d say - then John Edwards needs to stop acting like it is, for everyone’s sake. That’s what I’ve been saying for a while….but who I am?
Now, actual people are saying it…
McClatchy Washington Bureau | 08/06/2008 | Tabloid’s claims threaten Edwards’ role at party’s convention
Given the interest in Edward’s affair, I though I might point out this link:
http://gawker.com/5034138/edwards-mistress-as-explained-in-american-psycho?autoplay=true
A classic movie with ever more tie-ins with current real-life…
I’m echoing George’s question. The mother has said it isn’t true. Another man has said the child is his. The birth certificate has no father listed.
Plus, suppose the mother - a private citizen, not a public figure - decides to file an invasion of privacy suit? What defenses would bloggers,newspapers, etc. have?
I’d love to see a discussion of that angle, but all I’ve seen are columns attacking the MSM for not pursuing the story.
I would have agreed with Afi Scruggs until I saw those National Enquirer pictures of Edwards with the baby in the hotel. Tell me, Afi, who took those pictures? It strikes me someone has a motive here to get this story out and in wide circulation, and I don’t think the real motive is really to establish paternity.
One thing that hasn’t been brought up in this incarnation of the msm v. new media battle is that this is a good example of why the msm is still necessary — w/o it, bloggers are toast because they don’t actually report, just bloviate. They’re pissed at msm for not actually finding out facts that they can then make snide comments about. Want to know if this is true or not? Get off your butt and do the reporting. Oh, yeah, I forgot, that’s hard.
Ed Allen: I saw the photos, too. The quality is awful, but they don’t prove the child is Edwards.
When I think of this story, I recall the rumors about Strom Thurmond’s African-American daughter. The truth came out after he died, when the woman held a press conference.
I was teaching journalism at the time, and used the story as a case study. In preparing my lectures, I asked lawyers whether the story could have been reported earlier. They told me no: she was denying it and she would have had grounds for a suit because the truth was potentially damaging. (The woman’s mother was 16, and worked as a maid in Thurmond’s house when she was impregnated.)
It’s obvious something is going on, but we really don’t know what. Still there are other folks involved besides the Edwards.
Bill, don’t know if you’ve seen this yet:
Edwards Admits to Affair, Denies Fathering Child
Nonsense is just nonsense, but nonsense compounded with condescension is asinine. If you’re not aware of the substantial political reporting — not just opinionating, but investigation — that’s been done on weblogs in the last few years, then you haven’t been looking for it, and are just smugly parroting the sneers of others. Of course, second-hand sneering is even easier than bloviating.
(Should have made the response to NC Hass a separate comment; sorry about that.)
I just saw the NY Times story. Seems like the right thing to do is to get comment from the child’s mother.
If she says Edwards isn’t the father, then what else can the news media do? Force her to have a paternity test?
BTW, let me clarify something.
Just because I didn’t think the story could be safely written doesn’t mean I condoned not investigating the allegations.
So Edwards got caught doing a Mccain, ie screwing around on his wife.
He’s going to get raked over the coals over it and deservedly so.
But it will also remind voters that john mccain cheated on his wife and can’t run on “family values” since adultery isn’t a family value.
not sure if it will hurt dems more than republicans ie a lot of them were adulters too, ie john mccain, rudy guiliani, newt gingrich etc.
Scraps makes a good point that a lot of bloggers (wee, let’s not say a lot, but some) are doing reporting. The distinction between web and hard-copy press is in one sense beside the point; both involve humans writing, and both range from excellent to total wastes.
The Edwards story, however, plainly highlights the now jejune feeling of the mainstream press that it gets to decide what’s news. Now–of course there will be some stories that in previous days don’t “deserve” to be printed (though the Edwards case is plainly not one of those). But the benefits on the upside far outweigh those, and the obvious concern about the downside in this instance just exposed the lingering arrogance of the establishment media–and its weasely logic when it gets into an uncomfortable position.
[…] do a story about why media critics like him didn’t do a story on that failure? This brings the number of the potential stories the media avoided during the Edwards news blackout to […]
[…] The John Edwards missed-story list grows! […]
For ypur information I believe Sam Stein of the Huffington Post scooped the Enquirer. Mickey Kaus has been blogging on this story from around the same time Sam Stein did his fine piece on The Huffington Post which was in Sept 2007. Kaus has spoken about it on Bloggingheads tv numerous times.
[…] week and a half ago, Hitsville listed the five stories that had metastasized as the major media ignored the John Edwards affair story. A few have begun to […]