Newspaper coverage of allegations against John Edwards by National Enquirer

I don't care about it. That doesn't mean it's not news.

Ran for VP four years ago.
Ran for president this year.
Wife is dying of cancer.
He may have been caught cheating on her.

If they can confirm it, it's a story. But these stories are pretty hard to confirm, which is probably the biggest reason why it's only been in the National Enquirer.

 

National Enquierer has broken dozens of stories like this for years, beating "mainstream" media by weeks and even months because mainstream looks down its noses at National Enquirer and is ashamed to pursue any NE story, even when it's a news story about a public figure on the scale of Edwards. So they pretend it doesn't exist and snub their noses at the NE.

Case in point---LAT telling its staffers they can't even BLOG about this alleged story. That's about as far as you can get in the tank.

 

Let me get this straight: John McCain denies affair with lobbyist. New York Times, which never reported McCain had an affair but said aides told him it looked bad, is evil for doing the story. John Edwards denies having an affair, and major news organizations are evil for NOT doing the story.

Tell me, where does the National Enquirer offer any proof? Its latest report is that Fox News confirms (We were right? We were right!) that John Edwards was at a Los Angeles hotel. Stop the presses!

I see no proof of boinking. Where is the boinking proof? Did anyone see the boinking? Did anyone hear Edwards making boinking noises? Is anyone on the record saying they witnessed the boinking? Does anyone have the stained sheets from this boinking? Photos? Tape recordings? Love letters?

What story?

 

Good points.

You left out:

Goes to the Democratic Convention, in theory, with delegates (I know, I know, he's released them to Obama) and thus

In theory, would get a podium appearance to speak during said convention

Which makes him, so to speak, a player.

 

If they can write about what he spends on his haircuts, they can write about him fucking around on his cancer-riddled wife.

 

Since the guy managed to snag a VP nom and was subsequently a respectable third against one of the strongest Dem two-ways of modern times, I'll readily grant Edwards that measure of respect.

 

It's a fine line, Frank.

And I understand the top-rung media's reluctance.

But if (and I said IF) a smoking gun's uncovered, want to see followup.
Pronto.

 

Let me ask you something. Based on what the National Enquirer has -- we are not talking hypothetically, in the sense that you imagine you might be able to confirm what it reported -- but based on what it has in its published account, would you report this in your newspaper, under your byline, as fact? Would you say to your newspaper's executive editor, in the daily news meeting, this is solid, we have to print this?

 

This is someone, who was on 60 Minutes within the past year or so talking about how dedicated he it to his wife as she battles cancer.

Cover the hell out of it.

 

No.

But if I'm a political reporter in Charlotte, I might be calling around and seeing what I can find out. I might see if there is a paper trail. I might look into the woman's financials and see if there is anything suspicious there.

If there isn't, I don't write it.

 

No.

Would you forbid your staffers from blogging about it?

 

My opinion is that news organizations should not have lower standards for blogs than they do for their other products. I understand many people here disagree, but I do not not think readers make that distinction -- to them it's the same writers, same product, same rules or lack thereof.