More on the Edwards scandal news blackout

[Easy90]

What Gives?

By Betsy Newmark
High School History and Government Teacher/Blogger

It’s now been five days since the National Enquirer broke a story about John Edwards supposedly slipping into his girlfriend’s hotel room late at night while their purported love child was being watched in a hotel room down the hall. When he emerged and was confronted by National Enquirer reporters and photographers, he ran into a bathroom where he held off the reporters until a hotel security guard could come escort him out. Two days later, FOX News confirmed the story with the hotel guard. The story has appeared in several foreign newspapers and has been all over the Internet, but it just can’t seem to break through to the major news media. Not only has it not appeared in the print copies of any major newspapers or the network news, but shows on the news media aren’t even discussing why the MSM isn’t reporting this story.

What gives? There are several hypotheses out there.

Jon Fine on Business Week’s blog puts forth the hypothesis that Edwards is no longer an elected figure, just a loser candidate. That doesn’t seem to pass the smell test. He was his party’s candidate for the vice presidency four years ago. He is mentioned on the list of possible veeps for Obama or as a possible cabinet member. He’s traveling the country in an effort to gain public support for his ideas in fighting poverty. He is as much a public figure as Jesse Jackson –who had his own love child scandal, a story that The National Enquirer led the way on.

And remember, it was just a couple of months ago that the network news broke into their evening news shows to broadcast John Edwards’ endorsement of Barack Obama. If he was such a news non-entity why did they bother?

Jack Shafer at Slate has his own theory - that the media is much more ferocious in pursuing stories of hypocrisy on homosexual activity than it is on heterosexual activity. Perhaps, but I suspect that the party of the accused plays a much larger role than the type of sex involved.

At one time you might have been able to argue that the MSM was above reporting on a story that came from The National Enquirer because they had higher standards, but that certainly didn’t stop The New York Times from reporting a featherlight story about concerns that McCain was maybe, perhaps, possibly having an affair with a lobbyist. And the MSM had no qualms about reporting The National Enquirer’s story on Rush Limbaugh and his oxycontin use.

The Los Angeles Times has even issued a ukase barring its online bloggers from discussing the story. Heck, even Wikipedia is preventing online editors from updating the John Edwards entry and including The National Enquirer allegations.

I think there are several reasons playing into the MSM disinclination to report this story. I think part of it is just a disinclination to report what Edwards terms as “tabloid trash.” Even though The National Enquirer has a decent background on scandal stories, most MSM journalists consider themselves above re-reporting what a story that The National Enquirer owns. If there were a police report or some other documentary evidence then they might start reporting what has been going on. We’ll see what happens when The National Enquirer releases the pictures that their Editor-in-Chief claims that they have. Though I expect that the MSM will still ignore the story if all The National Enquirer has are pictures of Edwards ignominiously sprinting in the Men’s Room.

And if journalists try to defend their lack of interest by saying that they just don’t believe the story, they could start by asking themselves if an innocent man, who had already been accused of having a love child with this woman in December, would arrange to spend several hours with her late at night alone in a hotel room? And would he then rush into a bathroom to avoid reporters? And would he then issue non-denials by condemning tabloids but refusing to answer why he was visiting the woman in the first place or whether he was indeed the father of her baby? Is that how an innocent man would act if the woman was, as the cover story goes, just the woman who had an affair with one of his aides?

And I don’t think we can discount partisan media bias. If this were a story about Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, or Mike Huckabee, I have no doubt that the story would be reported. And don’t try to argue that Republican sex scandals are worthier of media attention because of the accusations of hypocrisy. John Edwards and his wife made their loving marriage part of their campaign, especially after her cancer returned. His status as a loving husband caring for his cancer-stricken wife was used by the campaign as a voucher for his character. And the blog, Death by a 1000 cuts, which has been all over this story, points to these now-ironic words from a 2006 National Press Club speech by John Edwards.

“… And, as I mentioned earlier, we would create opportunities for young fathers to work and take responsibility for their children, and reward them for doing so…

“All of us — parents, clergy, teachers, public officials — we need to say that it is wrong when young men father children but don’t support them.

Come on, there’s got to be a hypocrisy hook somewhere in there. At least as much as there was for the Bill Bennett’s gambling story even though he had never spoken out specifically to condemn gambling.

Into this mélange of reasons, I think that Bonnie Goldstein at Slate’s XX Factor has put her finger on another aspect of this MSM’s squeamishness, they like and feel sorry for Elizabeth Edwards. Whether that sympathy would play out differently for a well-liked Republican spouse (is that an oxymoron?) in a similar story, I’ll leave up to readers to decide.
LINK (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/28/what-gives/#more-424)

What is clear is that we will still have the two-tiered electorate that Mickey Kaus has talked about: those who get their news from the MSM and those who get news from the Internet, cable TV, talk radio, and now The National Enquirer. So keep reading the internet if you want to be fully informed of what everyone, including all the journalists behind the scenes, are talking about.

[Elrathin]

How about, noone gives a shit and people don't think Fox News and the National Enquirer are credible sources. That is why it's not in the media lol.

[Buck Laser]

How about, noone gives a shit and people don't think Fox News and the National Enquirer are credible sources. That is why it's not in the media lol.
Aw, El...do you really want Easy to lose his last hope? He's counted so much on this garbage story being something he can "use."

How about this story from the National Enquirer? Obama fathers two headed alien love child. Invaders prepared to take over at Obama Inauguration. :nana:

[Easy90]

I suppose you lefties are gonna hiss and spit at this too then. LOL! You know every word of it is true too...man I love to watch the lefties tap dance!

A BABY DADDY FOR BOTH AMERICAS
by Ann Coulter
July 30, 2008

The mainstream media really seem to imagine they can prevent Americans from knowing information by refusing to mention it in newspapers or on TV.

For those few Americans without an Internet connection and to whom I have not faxed the National Enquirer stories: Evidence is accumulating that John Edwards is right -- there really are "two Americas." There's one where men cheat on their cancer-stricken wives and one where men do not cheat on their cancer-stricken wives.

To put it another way, it would appear that ambulances aren't the only things John Edwards has been chasing lately.

Last year, the National Enquirer broke the story about New-Age divorcee Rielle Hunter, formerly Lisa Druck, telling friends she was having an affair with Edwards and that she was pregnant with his "love child."

Who knew that "my father was a mill worker" could be such a great pickup line? In his defense, Edwards had to do something to kill time between giving $50,000 speeches on poverty.

I guess the Enquirer is lucky Edwards isn't a trial lawyer! A sleazy carnival sideshow trial lawyer wouldn't even need to start channeling unborn children before a jury -- as Edwards did in the junk-science cases that made him a multimillionaire -- to win a defamation case if these charges are false. The "love child" allegation could be easily disproved by DNA testing.

Which brings up a fascinating legal question: Would it be admissible for Edwards to channel the very love child at issue during such a proceeding? Reminiscent of his performances in medical malpractice cases, he could say: She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you, she's saying: "John Edwards ain't my daddy!"

When the National Enquirer story first broke last year, the Edwards campaign denied that Edwards was the father, pawning the affair off on an apparently very loyal Edwards campaign official, Andrew Young. Like Edwards, Young was married with children, but also like Edwards, Young is a Democrat, so it was possible.

Except that, not only has Young's wife not left him, but she was perfectly copacetic with her husband's mistress moving into their gated community for the duration of her pregnancy, and even joining her, Andrew and the kids for dinner.

Back on Earth, that doesn't happen. The Edwards campaign better start looking at its backup plan of claiming Nathan Lane is the father.

It also didn't smack of innocence that the Edwards campaign stripped Hunter's videos from the Edwards Web site when the story broke.

Soon after Edwards met Hunter in a bar in New York, the Edwards campaign began paying her more than $100,000 to make "hip" videos of him for the campaign Web site. Unfortunately, Edwards' hair stylists ate up most of the budget.

As Herculean a task as it would be to make John Edwards look hip, the videos can't be worse for the campaign than the Edwards staffer who said of the Catholic church's position on birth control: "What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?" So why did they take down Hunter's videos?

With the MSM still pretending the Internet doesn't exist, last week the Enquirer staked out the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles after receiving a tip that Edwards would be going there to visit Hunter and the love child, who reportedly has her mother's eyes and her father's dramatic flair in front of a jury.

According to the Enquirer, Edwards entered Hunter's hotel room around 9:45 p.m. and left at 2:40 in the morning. Seeing reporters as he left Hunter's room, Edwards sprinted to a hotel bathroom and blockaded himself in until hotel security came to rescue him. Even more suspicious, while Edwards was barricaded in the bathroom, no one reported hearing sounds of a blow dryer.

When asked about the Enquirer story at a press conference a few days later, Edwards looked as flustered as Rep. Robert Wexler did after being asked if he really lives with his mother-in-law in Florida while running for office in that district.

First Edwards pretended to be unfamiliar with the story, a preposterous pose even if the story were false. Then Edwards dropped eye contact and said: "That's tabloid trash. They're full of lies. I'm here to talk about helping people." He couldn't have looked more guilty if he had broken into a cold sweat and lit a cigarette. Britney Spears has responded more credibly to questions about tabloid stories.

Meanwhile, the only way consumers of the old media might ascertain that Edwards is embroiled in some sort of scandal is that, starting last Thursday, his name was summarily dropped from lists of possible vice presidential candidates.

If only Republican Larry Craig had been in the bathroom, the MSM might have covered it.

[preservanation]

This is not going away.
Sooner or later Edwards will have to answere to questions concerning this issue.

At least Clinton was smart enough to wear a jimmy-cap, have oral "non" sex or pull out...oops, forgot about the blue/white dress there for a moment...

I feel bad for his poor wife, and at least owes her an explanation...I hope he has.

[Easy90]

Yep...the most dangerous thing Bill did was subject Monica to cancer by introducing aged Cuban tobacco into the....ah, mix. But I understand she didn't "inhale."

As for his wife...I feel sorry and bad for her because of her illness. But I suspect she knows her hubby pretty well, and is putting up with anyway...like Hillary, for the sake of political expediency. She seemed perfectly good with his shameful exploitation of her medical condition for the sake of running.

[Elrathin]

Sooner or later Edwards will have to answere to questions concerning this issue.

And why is that? Why does he HAVE to answer to anyone about this? Tell me Pres, what law has been broken that he would HAVE to answer anyone?

[Easy90]

"Why does he HAVE to answer to anyone about this? Tell me Pres, what law has been broken that he would HAVE to answer anyone?" Elrathin

People in the public eye who seek elected office are obliged to answer legitimate questions about their behavior... Their answer can be: "No comment!" Or..."None of your business!"...and people can judge their suitability for office based on that. BUT....if they answer such questions by telling a LIE...then they stand to face the judgement of the public as a confirmed liar. It's perfectly proper for the public to ask if John Edwards fathered a child by another woman while he was married to his cancer riddled wife...particularly when a woman has a baby she says is his, and he's caught at 2:30 in the AM in her and her baby in a hotel room.

If you seek a public mandate for candidacy for public office, the public has a right to know what kind of person you are...EVEN if you're a Democrat! Get it yet?

[Elrathin]

Easy I never said people don't have the right to question him, that's fine. But it is also his RIGHT not to ANSWER any of those questions.

Pres said he will HAVE to answer to them and NO he does not HAVE to answer to anyone.

[Easy90]

Easy I never said people don't have the right to question him, that's fine. But it is also his RIGHT not to ANSWER any of those questions.

Pres said he will HAVE to answer to them and NO he does not HAVE to answer to anyone.

Then I agree...he has a right to refuse to answer the questions. See? We agree.

Of course, by refusing to answer, the public has a right to assume he is guilty of that which he is accused of doing...Namely, fathering a child with another woman while campaigning for president...and while his wife struggles with a grave, possibly terminal illness. He's a public figure. He's accepted tax dollars in his various campaigns... As such...he should be subject to questions involving moral character. If you disagree, that's your choice.

[Buck Laser]

Easy, the mistake you're making is believing that anybody but you and your ideological bedmates give a horse's patoot about some story that basically appears only in the Enquirer. And I suspect you wouldn't care either if it were a conservative.

[Hurricane]

The reason why this story has gone no where is because we have one news agency with "confidential" information that has not been largely shared with other news agencies. According to the National Enquirer,

"...Meanwhile, Edwards' cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth has joined him on the campaign trail.

In a statement issued to The ENQUIRER through her attorney, Rielle said: "The fact that I am expecting a child is my personal and private business. This has no relationship to nor does it involve John Edwards in any way. Andrew Young is the father of my unborn child."

But a source extremely close to the 43-year-old divorcée says Rielle has told a far different story privately: "Rielle told me she had a secret affair with Edwards. When she found out that she was pregnant, she said he was the father."

So, publicly, Rielle has stated one thing while "privately" having conversations and leading the Enquirer on with another story. As a Journalism major, the one thing you *need* for a story to be blown into the mainstream media is creditable, unrefutable information. The fact that the Enquirer is a magazine and wants to make every cent off a decent story may lead to credibility issues (though they would suggest that their sources are credible). You just don't know. It's too risky. Maybe if the informant told multiple news sources about the love child, then there would be grounds to blow the story out into the open.

[Easy90]

The reason why this story has gone no where is because we have one news agency with "confidential" information that has not been largely shared with other news agencies. According to the National Enquirer,

"...Meanwhile, Edwards' cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth has joined him on the campaign trail.

In a statement issued to The ENQUIRER through her attorney, Rielle said: "The fact that I am expecting a child is my personal and private business. This has no relationship to nor does it involve John Edwards in any way. Andrew Young is the father of my unborn child."

But a source extremely close to the 43-year-old divorcée says Rielle has told a far different story privately: "Rielle told me she had a secret affair with Edwards. When she found out that she was pregnant, she said he was the father."

So, publicly, Rielle has stated one thing while "privately" having conversations and leading the Enquirer on with another story. As a Journalism major, the one thing you *need* for a story to be blown into the mainstream media is creditable, unrefutable information. The fact that the Enquirer is a magazine and wants to make every cent off a decent story may lead to credibility issues (though they would suggest that their sources are credible). You just don't know. It's too risky. Maybe if the informant told multiple news sources about the love child, then there would be grounds to blow the story out into the open.

Sorry, but you're probably too young to remember that it was Matt Drudge who broke the Clinton/Lewinsky story after the mainstream media sat on the information for weeks...making an overt decision to NOT air it.

Moreover, Fox News interviewed the witness that verified Edwards had been seen..and he saw the reporters chasing him asking questions..and his hiding in the bathroom... If this were to have been Dick Cheney, or any Republican close to power in Washington, it would be the above the fold headline in every national newspaper, as well as the subject of "special reports" on all the alphabet news networks.

The truth will come out...right now Edwards is in hiding, and the spinners are meeting to assess battle damage and strategy. They know they can count on a sycophant press, for the most part...and are likely to try to maintain a news blackout until something forces a comment. One may reasonably assume Edwards will stay mum on the topic for as long as possible, because obviously, his only course is to either confirm, or deny the truth of the affair. Any person innocent, or with any shred of plausable denyability would be out there proving they are not guilty. As with Clinton's initial flat denial to the press and public of the affair, he quickly became contrite and admitted he was a bad boy...once the DNA was recovered. If Edwards was innocent of these accusations, he could simply announce that he was, and challenge the accusers to come up with DNA...and the impostor who looked like him at the woman's hotel room. Ahem...but, you know that ain't gonna happen!

[Hurricane]

You just confirmed what I'm saying. A story that originates on a source like the Drudge Report or a magazine like the National Enquirer will take much longer to blow up than a story that originates and is directly confirmed by the AP. It's risky for a news agency to run a story like that. The story broke as early as October of 2007. People speculate that this was the working of the Hillary "War Room". It's not credible. One witness? That's all? What about the reporters that were chasing him? What about the hotel staff? What about anyone in the hotel at the time that the story broke? All they have is one witness?

I'm not denying it. I'm just saying this story isn't worth publishing. As a journalist, I wouldn't want to write about something that happened years ago.

The story published in October of 2007.. Please keep in mind this is a magazine.

" says the woman confessed to her. "When they met at a bar, sparks flew immediately.

"She never expected it would turn sexual since John is married and is running for President. But it soon did — and she fell for him."

In one bombshell e-mail message provided to The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, the woman confesses to a friend she's "in love with John," but it's "difficult because he is married and has kids."

In another e-mail, she writes: "Last night and this a.m., he actually has amazed me. He is a great man. My heart is loud and my head is silenced."

Disclosed her friend: "She initially confided in a few of her closest pals that she was sleeping with 'a married man named John.'"

(http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_cheating_scandal/celebrity/64271)

It's just not credible. Why not include full record of the emails? the full text of them? this sounds so loose and framed. Who is this friend? Why would such a good friend put the two in peril? I'm just saying, it's a sketchy story. If there were credible sources, FoxNews would have been all of it. I just searched "John Edwards Scandal" on the website and couldn't find much.

[Elrathin]

Of course, by refusing to answer, the public has a right to assume he is guilty of that which he is accused of doing.

So are you're ok with guilty until proven innocent then?

[Easy90]

So are you're ok with guilty until proven innocent then?

Not in a court of law...but that's a different venue. Since he doesn't deny it, and refuses to answer questions about it, could easily disprove it were it a lie, and could (should, and most certainly would) sue the pants off The Enquirer if he were innocent....AND is a proven sleaze ball in the first place...I believe in common sense.

[Easy90]

You just confirmed what I'm saying. A story that originates on a source like the Drudge Report or a magazine like the National Enquirer will take much longer to blow up than a story that originates and is directly confirmed by the AP. It's risky for a news agency to run a story like that. The story broke as early as October of 2007. People speculate that this was the working of the Hillary "War Room". It's not credible. One witness? That's all? What about the reporters that were chasing him? What about the hotel staff? What about anyone in the hotel at the time that the story broke? All they have is one witness?

I'm not denying it. I'm just saying this story isn't worth publishing. As a journalist, I wouldn't want to write about something that happened years ago.

The story published in October of 2007.. Please keep in mind this is a magazine.

" says the woman confessed to her. "When they met at a bar, sparks flew immediately.

"She never expected it would turn sexual since John is married and is running for President. But it soon did — and she fell for him."

In one bombshell e-mail message provided to The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, the woman confesses to a friend she's "in love with John," but it's "difficult because he is married and has kids."

In another e-mail, she writes: "Last night and this a.m., he actually has amazed me. He is a great man. My heart is loud and my head is silenced."

Disclosed her friend: "She initially confided in a few of her closest pals that she was sleeping with 'a married man named John.'"

(http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_cheating_scandal/celebrity/64271)

It's just not credible. Why not include full record of the emails? the full text of them? this sounds so loose and framed. Who is this friend? Why would such a good friend put the two in peril? I'm just saying, it's a sketchy story. If there were credible sources, FoxNews would have been all of it. I just searched "John Edwards Scandal" on the website and couldn't find much.

So, I take it when The Enquirer was the first to break the Rush Limbaugh prescription med abuse story...you didn't buy it either..and of course, the media wasn't interested in that... Right?

[Hurricane]

So, I take it when The Enquirer was the first to break the Rush Limbaugh prescription med abuse story...you didn't buy it either..and of course, the media wasn't interested in that... Right?\

This is the story of a man who broke the law. Law Enforcement officials were talking not only to the National Enquirer, but to CNN, CBS, and the AP. Edwards hasn't done anything illegal. The sources in the Limbaugh story were very credible. They said that Rush's Housekeeper told them so. That's one specific person. There's no confusing who Rush's housekeeper is. Whereas, in the Edwards story, the most credible source is an obscure entity known to us as a friend. And then law officials paid attention and interviewed the housekeeper.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Maybe Edwards wife will come out tomorrow and say "He cheated on me" or the other woman will come out also. But until then, more witnesses and more specifics need to come out from a story to get blown out to the public. That's Communications 110 at UMiami lol. I can't believe I'm using an education. This is great.

[Easy90]

"I’m sure all this stuff is of absolutely no interest whatsoever to anybody who’s following this non-story. “What does it have to do with anything? Who cares about the guy after he’s completely removed himself from public life?” Exactly.

Update: Radar Online also says the Enquirer is in no hurry to publish its alleged pictures of Edwards’ Bennyhillian late-night hotel chase scene. Enquirer editor David Perel tells them:

“It’s a story that we’re taking a long view of. We’ve got a big exclusive coming out this week, and we are on the trail of some stuff that’s even hotter. But no one will dictate the time-table for when we release our unpublished material. We’ve been setting the agenda, and will continue doing so.”

Very odd. But then, I don’t remember seeing any pictures of Larry Craig getting to know another gentleman through a hole in a bathroom stall, and the “real” news didn’t seem to need any visual evidence before they ran with the story for weeks. If Perel is lying about those pictures, or any other part of the story, seems to me he’s opening himself up to a huge lawsuit. Well, it’s still a lot of news cycles until the DNC…

Update 2: Ken Layne points out that Edwards still has delegates going to the DNC. Sure, he’s only got 4, but that’s still more than all but two other Democrats in the whole country. And he’s expected to speak at the convention, or at least that was the plan before 2:40 AM last Tuesday. So maybe he’s not the long-forgotten private citizen some people are insisting he is.

Update 3: The Enquirer now says that Edwards has been paying Hunter $15,000 a month to keep her mouth shut, and is also paying off the “real baby daddy,” Andrew Young. Also, the baby is a girl and her name is Frances Quinn Hunter. News? We’ll see. Please leave your “Sasquatch” and “Bat Boy” jokes in the comments."

LINK (http://deceiver.com/2008/07/29/more-non-newsworthy-rielle-hunterjohn-edwards-goodness/)

[preservanation]

Good get, Easy.

I repeat...this ain't agowen away.

Good point Layne makes about the 4 delegates, btw.

[micfranklin]

You know what I find very odd about this story?

No one EVER takes the National Enquirer seriously as a source at all but suddenly it's the biggest thing when someone fairly important happens to be the subject. With that in mind this someone also happens to be a former presidential candidate.

Isn't that funny?

[ilikegw]

If he is guilty of cheating, then he needs to explain to his sick wife and their children why he felt the need to do what he did. He also needs to get off his high horse and admit he's wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3htykSpdNEo

[micfranklin]

Extremely sad day in America when the Enquirer is the only source for a "story."

[Easy90]

You know what I find very odd about this story?

No one EVER takes the National Enquirer seriously as a source at all but suddenly it's the biggest thing when someone fairly important happens to be the subject. With that in mind this someone also happens to be a former presidential candidate.

Isn't that funny?

It is funny. I personally have never read an issue of The Enquirer...more than was necessary while standing at a supermarket checkout counter... And yes, their headlines and tone, even from that limited perspective, is very 'off-putting' to me. Then again, they sell a TON of newsprint...and are constantly being sued by celebs (sometimes successfully, sometimes, not so much) for the stuff they print. They apparently have a huge staff of "reporters" who dog out stories about the rich and famous...as well as the weird and goofy. You know that there has to be a board of editors there that evaluate the risk and liability for every article they run. I would think that they would be very confident of their "facts" before going after someone like Edwards. As it's obvious....if they inaccurately portray him as a wife-cheating scumbag ... he will sue them BIG time. And the reaction from Edwards literally OOZES with the perception of guilt!

I think what's WAY more "funny" is how the alphabet (liberal) media is ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

[Elrathin]

Extremely sad day in America when the Enquirer is the only source for a "story."

Yep, it is. Talk about a partisan witch hunt, this is it.

[micfranklin]

It is funny. I personally have never read an issue of The Enquirer...more than was necessary while standing at a supermarket checkout counter... And yes, their headlines and tone, even from that limited perspective, is very 'off-putting' to me. Then again, they sell a TON of newsprint...and are constantly being sued by celebs (sometimes successfully, sometimes, not so much) for the stuff they print. They apparently have a huge staff of "reporters" who dog out stories about the rich and famous...as well as the weird and goofy. You know that there has to be a board of editors there that evaluate the risk and liability for every article they run. I would think that they would be very confident of their "facts" before going after someone like Edwards. As it's obvious....if they inaccurately portray him as a wife-cheating scumbag ... he will sue them BIG time. And the reaction from Edwards literally OOZES with the perception of guilt!

I think what's WAY more "funny" is how the alphabet (liberal) media is ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

This is the same Enquirer that said Yetis are going to take over the world. Why is anyone paying attention to them now if they were just out to make money off of shit no one has ever believed?

[Easy90]

So...you're saying everything they print is a lie? Oh..I see...you mean, like the New York Times. Well...you can get satisfaction when Edwards wins a big lawsuit against them...after the "truth" comes out, and he proves that what they printed isn't true.

Actually, I'm betting that what they've printed is true... If you examine it...they've simply printed the history of the allegations that this woman and Edwards had an affair...and the reported sighting of Edwards going to the Beverly Hills hotel she was registered in...with her baby..and spending 5 hours in her room...then getting caught leaving (at 2:30 AM)..his panicked evasion of the reporters, and their questions as to why he would be caught sneaking in and out of her hotel room if there wasn't truth to the story. Then, we have Edwards "non-denial" that he was there with only his comments something to the effect that The Enquirer was a "trashy tabloid." Couple that with the news blackout from the sycophant media, and you have a pretty good case for believing it's 100% true.

[micfranklin]

So...you're saying everything they print is a lie? Oh..I see...you mean, like the New York Times. Well...you can get satisfaction when Edwards wins a big lawsuit against them...after the "truth" comes out, and he proves that what they printed isn't true.

Have you seen an army of well-armed Yetis anywhere in the world? Has anyone? No, because it's obviously not true and everyone knows they make shit up every week because it sounds funny.

Actually, I'm betting that what they've printed is true... If you examine it...they've simply printed the history of the allegations that this woman and Edwards had an affair...and the reported sighting of Edwards going to the Beverly Hills hotel she was registered in...with her baby..and spending 5 hours in her room...then getting caught leaving (at 2:30 AM)..his panicked evasion of the reporters, and their questions as to why he would be caught sneaking in and out of her hotel room if there wasn't truth to the story. Then, we have Edwards "non-denial" that he was there with only his comments something to the effect that The Enquirer was a "trashy tabloid." Couple that with the news blackout from the sycophant media, and you have a pretty good case for believing it's 100% true.

A trashy tabloid that everyone knows is fake, nothing more. It doesn't take a lot of skill to make anything up. If this really is true than Obama really is a radical Muslim, McCain lied about Vietnam and Hilary Clinton had snipers shooting at her in Bosnia.

[Easy90]

Yep, it is. Talk about a partisan witch hunt, this is it.

Yep...just like the "partisan witch hunt" re: Larry Craig....cept Craig's wife doesn't have breast cancer...that we know about...and he's a Republican..so the alphabet media wasn't as concerned about running the story....

If Edwards is a "victim" here...he can easily debunk all these "lies" and show the world he's really the good-looking family man with the suffering wife who stands by him in the face of ugly, slandarous and libelous Republican political attacks.. I suspect he's just waiting til next week to show how it couldn't have been him in that hotel room for 5 hours, and he ISN'T sending that woman around $15,000 a month...and her baby CAN'T be his...because of DNA testing.... When he does all that, I am gonna put an Obama sticker on my car's bumper.

[Elrathin]

Yep...just like the "partisan witch hunt" re: Larry Craig.

Larry Craig was ARRESTED. tell me what Edwards did illegal, that The National Enquirer wrote about? Not even in the same ballpark.

But hey if you conservatives want to believe a trash mag like the National Enquirer as an "accurate source" , by all means go ahead. It does speak volumes about what someconservatives think is an accurate source though. Anything that trashes a Dem is an accurate source to some conservatives.

[ilikegw]

If the story is not accurate or in any way, shape or form truthful, then John Edwards should get his ass into civil court and file a lawsuit for defamation and liable.

I'll do a search to see if he's filed a suit.

[ilikegw]

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-38,GGLJ:en&q=john+edwards+sues+national+enquirer

NE says they've got a video tape.... maybe that's the reason he hasn't sued.... hmmmm...

[AlanC]

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-38,GGLJ:en&q=john+edwards+sues+national+enquirer

NE says they've got a video tape.... maybe that's the reason he hasn't sued.... hmmmm...

If he sues, he will have to offer proof that they are lying. I suspect that is the real reason he is avoiding all reporters these days.

This is what they tarred Nixon with as a non-denial denial. It was true then and its probably true now. Even Craig attempted to deny wiht some rigthous indignation the absolute truth. Edwards seems totally cowed by this.

[ilikegw]

If there is a video tape of them together and the story rang true that he was there with her for hours and snuck out in the middle of the night then they aren't lying. The most he could try to prove is that they weren't having an affair but are friends having a late night chat.

I think it's safe to assume (well, I assume) he was there, he got caught and he's not saying anything hoping it will go away. it's highly suspect that he hasn't come forward denying the story with vigor and from a bullhorn.

Married men shouldn't be sneaking around hotels in the late hours of the evening in hotel rooms with other women, regardless if they're having sex or not (but, come on, who sneaks off to a hotel with another women if they aren't doing the do?). If you want to chat with a friend, do it in the afternoon so you can't be accused of such things.

[Easy90]

“We drew ‘em a road map to the story. All they had to do was follow it and do a little basic reporting. We did it. Fox did it. They can, too–if they want to.”
–David Perel, Editor-in-Chief, National Enquirer,
on the Mainstream Media failure to check out the John Edwards affair and cover-up

DBKP’s 2nd Interview covers:

* David Perel on the National Enquirer’s latest allegations in the John Edwards scandal [EDWARDS' HU$H MONEY TO MISTRESS], which involve hush money being funneled to Rielle Hunter, their baby and former Edwards Director of Finance, Andrew Young, who earlier claimed he was the father.

DBKP talked to David Perel today, and the National Enquirer’s Editor-in-Chief had a little advice for slack-jawed competitors in the news biz who dismiss the story [John Edwards Love Child Scandal] because it appeared first in the Enquirer.

“Try doing a little basic reporting. Do the work. Prove us wrong.”

UPDATES to follow at end of story.
UPDATE #1: 6:25 EDT July 30 2008

A week after the National Enquirer’s reporting team cornered John Edwards in a Beverly Hilton men’s room, not a word about the growing scandal has appeared in the New York Times.

Nor on CNN, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, or in the pages of Time or Newsweek.

Four days after Fox News confirmed the confrontation by interviewing a security guard at the Beverly Hilton, we’re assured by the LA Times that their “Metro Desk is on it”.

No word from the Times Metro Desk on what they’ve uncovered. To our knowledge, the memo that Times Blog Editor, Tony Pearce, circulated to his reporters not to mention the scandal on-line, hasn’t been rescinded.

No Denial from Edwards

A trial lawyer–one who has built his fortune and spent his life suing others–is accused of fathering an illegitimate child while running for president. He’s later caught in the Beverly Hilton visiting his mistress and their love child, then runs from the Enquirer’s reporters.

All together: juicy lawsuit time.

If the story is false.

Yet, Edwards hasn’t threatened to take action against the Enquirer. What does this say?

David Perel just chuckled at the question–then hinted at more to come.

“We have a little more up our sleeve.”

LINK (http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/07/john-edwards-scandal-enquirer-editor-david-perel-we-drew-the-media-a-road-map/)


The National Enquirer has come out with another bombshell John Edwards allegation.

The reports that his mistress/babymomma, Rielle Hunter, won't say a word about their relationship and love child because she's been secretly receiving $15,000 a month from the former senator and presidential candidate.

The money is reportedly being funneled to Hunter by a wealthy colleague who was closely tied to the Edwards campaign.

This same man is also supposedly paying off Edwards’ pal and former aide Andrew Young – who tried to take the heat off the ex-Senator by claiming he is the father of Rielle’s baby.

An insider told the tabloid, “A super-rich pal – who was closely involved with the campaign finances – is helping John. It’s likely this man doesn’t know all the dirty details of John’s extramarital affair, but is acting out of loyalty and is not asking a lot of questions – only writing the checks,” revealed a source very close to the situation.

Johnny boy has yet to make a comment about the shenanigans asserted by the Enquirer.

Why not?

What do y'all think????

http://perezhilton.com/2008-07-30-huh-little-mistre

[Buck Laser]

Jeez, the faith you guys have in the checkout counter press is really touching. I'll bet you all believe in the tooth fairy and the Clinton "murders" too. After all, the media have been hiding those too.

[micfranklin]

I'm beginning to get the feeling that the Enquirer is only telling the truth when Democrats are involved. If it were Obama he would've been found guilty, no investigation need.

[Buck Laser]

I'm beginning to get the feeling that the Enquirer is only telling the truth when Democrats are involved. If it were Obama he would've been found guilty, no investigation need.
Do you really think they're telling the truth about Edwards?

[Easy90]

I bet we find out pretty soon....if Edwards is "guilty" of what he's reported to have done. And I bet the leftwingers quickly stfu! LOL!

[Buck Laser]

I bet we find out pretty soon....if Edwards is "guilty" of what he's reported to have done. And I bet the leftwingers quickly stfu! LOL!
Funny thing about that, Easy: when I'm shown to be wrong, I know how to apologize. I presume you're still talking about the love child shit.

[preservanation]

I think what's WAY more "funny" is how the alphabet (liberal) media is ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
Exactly.
Those spinnin libs in the soup no longer dictate what is news.
It's about time the people woke up to that fact.
Again...this is not going to go away until it addressed.
That has not happened.
The easiest way for Edwards to dispel this if it is untrue is to address it.
He isn't...why is that?
Pride?
I doubt it.
Concern for his wife?
Maybe....but then why not deny it?
IMO...he stinks like week old pizza.

[lily]

Extremely sad day in America when the Enquirer is the only source for a "story."


Now, now, Mic..........we also have Betsy Newmark a
High School History and Government Teacher/Blogger.........and
Anne Coulter:lmao:

[IndieVisible]

I believe the story! I just don't care. If Edwards was in the game some how, I would care more. And even then all I would expect from him is coming clean about it and that would be the end of it for me. I simply hated the way Bill Clinton denied every thing. i liked him a lot before that. had he just came clean I would be all right with his poor judgment (and bad taste). Let him with out sin cast the first stone! Making mistakes is part of life. Just be man enough to stand up to them and admit it is all I expect.

[Hurricane]

"I did not have sex with that woman. I wanted to!"

[preservanation]

Yurr a sick man, newbie!
:D

[Elrathin]

I bet we find out pretty soon....if Edwards is "guilty" of what he's reported to have done. And I bet the leftwingers quickly stfu! LOL!

Bush was accused of Using Cocaine and having an affair with condolezza rice. I guess since Bush didn't sue that it is all true right Easy?

After all if Edwards doesn't sue he is guilty to you, so I guess so is Bush.