Well, John Edward’s sordid little tale can apparently now be told by the mainstream media, now that hizzoner has opened up and admitted to the truth of the basic allegation. While continuing to deny parentage of his so-called “love child” with a former campaign worker.
The story – first exposed by the National Enquirer in late July- was deemed not newsworthy by most of the major media outlets until today, whether for its suspiciously middlebrow provenance or simply for the pain it might inflict on Edwards’ long suffering, cancer-stricken wife. Although that second rationale seems rather self-serving: The gentlemen of the press are more considerate of the former presidential candidate’s wife than the gentleman himself. And this despite the fact that Edwards remained a contender for a cabinet post, if not the actual VP nomination, at least until this story that no one would talk about broke. I mean, there were actual pictures.
Three weeks after everybody but our national news media started talking about the national news, the most recent New York Times article concerning Edwards is still a story from mid-May. It seems that the North Carolina trial lawyer has committed his support to Barrack Obama. Contrast that to the embarrassingly thin story that the Times ran on Senator John McCain back in February, citing two anonymous sources to speculate on their own front page that the Arizona senator and Republican presidential primary candidate – he would not seal his party’s nomination until March – might, or might not, have had an affair with a Washington lobbyist. Couldn’t say, for sure. Just thought it was, you know: Worth speculating about.
This sort of imbalance is simply contemptible. And they wonder why the brand is tarnished, and the stock is in the tank. It isn’t that there’s not a market for objective news, in-depth analysis and editorial opinion, each in its own appropriate section. It’s that they’re not even trying to service that market.
I dunno. They might well offend their core readership too much if they offered a balanced perspective on things.
But don’t you see? He was supporting the development of a next generation media person with $114K grant. It wasn’t a one tme child support payment, honest.
Now I know why his face and hair looked like he had honey glazed donuts.
Living in the People’s Republic of NYC, I can look at it from another persepctive. Several months ago, the NY Times ran a hard hitting expose, without any facts to back it up, that John McCain was having an affair with a staffer. They have assiduosly avoided ANY mention of this story. Gawd, does it make my blood boil.
Back when the Enquirer broke this story in July, I had dinner with my parents and a friend of theirs, a very hard line liberal. She made the comment that Edwards and Hunter have denied it, so she was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Ugh.
Back at the second milblogger conference, one of the attendess stood up at the mike and said “I’m from the main stream media, and I’m hear to help.” Any time these putzes want to start doing their jobs it would be fine with me, as this is why circulation is dropping like a stone.
One of my co-workers buys put options on the stock of the NY times, and every three months he treats him and his wife to as nice dinner. I hope that they fold, and soon.
On the other hand, this disproves the rumors that Edwards was gay. Only a straight guy could treat women this badly.
Does this mean another Democrat comes out in favor of drilling?
I’ve long thought that John Edwards reminded me of something unpleasant I stepped in on a hot day, but I also think that having the MSM so far in the tank for one side of the political spectrum isn’t good for the Republic. I’m thankful that alternative media sources exist today, at any rate, and am glad that I decided not to pursue journalism as a career, opting instead for the thrill-a-minute world of accountancy. A little easier to be a conservative in that field than the other……..
A populist con-man.
Good thing for the Enquirer. I tell my students, surprisingly, the tabloids do turn a good story now and then.
I am disappointed at the comments regarding this; they are usually more insightful at this site.
It is difficult for me to imagine a cogent, mature adult that extends a mantle of honor or prestige to any entity that does nothing more than market a product. To actually expect truth from them stretches my credulity. Why would truth interest them? They are selling a product, pure and simple. Stop expecting more.
He has always made my skin crawl.
I am just sick for his wife. The public humiliation would be more than I think I could endure.
Edwards claims to have come clean with his wife back in 2006. I guess while Jonnie Boy was out trying to sell his “Two Americas” during his run for President his “Two Families” were sitting on this and only because the “Two Media’s” in this country was he able to keep it under wraps so long.
The truth is his Lips were moving – all Lie’s were coming out as usual.
BT: Jimmy T sends.
Gray, in fact, you have the inverse of the truth here. Reporters went out of their way to avoid reporting on a story that would almost certainly sell because they were sympathetic to the politics of the subject.
This is a case of ideology trumping financial self interest.
How about “All the news that’s fit to print”
Ring any bells, Gray?
STILL hanging on to that NYT subsciption, Lex?
My only subscriptions are to the WSJ and the Economist mag, Cottus. But they have that Internet thing, allows you to peek in elsewhere free o’ charge.
Makes for good sport, sometimes. Yorta try it.
Gray,
I thought the purpose of the news media was to tell us the truth about the events of the day.
Yes, they’re there to sell a product as well, but if that’s all they were there for they could just as easily put out 50 some odd pages of advertisements and not be bothered with all of that news stuff. They’d probably make more money at it too because they wouldn’t have all that column space taken up with news and editorials… or in the case of the NYT — DNC propaganda.
Jim C
Funny, I find very little people speculating about the effect this will have on the Presidential race. Edwards was history a long time ago-and if he and his wife have opted not to divorce over this, well that’s their decision. His political career is over and he knows it.
Problem for a Obama though is that Edwards is very similar to him politically and it will only be a matter of time till Obama is painted as a black version of Edwards.
Which means Edwards support is going to amount to nothing. When you add that to the fact that Hillar will go through the motions of supporting him-while really hoping for him to lose-its bad for Obama.
As for the NYT, well I think a lot of people who criticize the paper actually need to read it once in a while. I am a Sunday Times subscriber and glad to be one. The Grey Lady may be down but she won’t be out.