Alone Among Network Broadcasts, CBS Evening News Ignores John Edwards Trial
Over the past few weeks, the John Edwards corruption trial has been all over the news, and for good reason: Edwards was one of the most visible and charismatic figures in the national Democratic Party for several years. The former trial attorney served as a senator from North Carolina from 1999 to 2005, and in 2004 and 2008 ran for president of the United States. In 2004, Edwards was his party's vice presidential nominee.
In the past month, the trial has brought forth sordid details of John Edwards using campaign funds to cover up an affair and provide for the love child who resulted from it. Between April 12 and May 16, ABC World News and NBC Nightly News ran a combined total of 34 stories about the John Edwards trial. Yet the CBS Evening News found time to run only one story on case during that same time period, and that on the opening day of the trial, April 22.
During the course of the trial, the CBS Evening News chose not to cover the story at all, leaving regular viewers in the dark about the trial's developments.
Below are some of the key developments that ABC's World News and the NBC's Nightly News covered about the John Edwards trial that the CBS Evening News neglected:
• On the April 26 edition of the ABC World News, it was reported that Andrew Young had admitted to using hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign funds for personal use, with Diane Sawyer noting of Edwards that “His defense lawyers spent hours trying to undermine the credibility of the star witnesses for the prosecution, former Edward’s aide Andrew Young, who claims he was asked to conceal Edwards's extramarital affair.”
• On the April 27 edition of the ABC World News, Bob Woodruff reported that “Andrew Young, the star witness against John Edwards, [said] he feared for his life, when he and Edwards were alone on a deserted country road, their scheme to hide Edwards’ affair unraveling.”
• On the May 1 edition of the NBC Nightly News, correspondent Lisa Myers told viewers that “The wife of the government’s star witness, Andrew Young, sparred with John Edwards's lawyer about whether she hates Edwards and blames him for trouble in her marriage.”
• On the May 2 edition of the NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams noted that John Edwards's daughter Cate ran out of the court room after hearing testimony claiming Edwards's late wife Elizabeth knew of the affair. Williams proclaimed, “Emotions were running high at the criminal trial of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards today, as a friend of John Edwards’s late wife Elizabeth testified about the anguish she suffered following her husband’s affair”
• On the May 4 edition of the ABC World News, Bob Woodruff reported on the story, saying. “All along, John Edwards has denied knowing about secret money that was paid to cover up his affair with girlfriend Rielle Hunter. Today, powerful evidence that he did.” Afterwards, Woodruff reported about testimony from various witnesses that admitted that they were asked for as much as $40 million in donations, even after the election was over.
• On the May 8 edition of the ABC World News, anchor Diane Sawyer opened her coverage of the story, saying, “And today another loyal staff member took the stand to tell why she is now testifying against her former boss.”
• On the May 14 edition of NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams reported that Cate Edwards planned to testify in her father's defense, saying “daughter Cate Edwards will take the witness stand as early as tomorrow to testify in her father's defense. She's been, as you may know, a steadfast supporter of her father and has accompanied him to court every day.”
Perhaps the CBS Evening News chose not to cover the Edwards trial in detail because they thought that it was not serious news. However, on April 23, the day after the CBS Evening News ran their lone story, they chose to cover the curious sport of Chess Boxing, with anchor Scott Pelley introducing the segment as “most unlikely sport we`ve ever seen.” On May 2, the CBS Evening News did a story on the famous “Scream” painting, with Scott Pelley asking, “And did you ever wonder what the artist was thinking when he painted this? Seth Doane tells us as the Scream goes up for auction.”
Makes you wonder if the CBS Evening News is trying to avoid talking about the John Edwards story.
Help us in the never-ending fight to combat the liberal media's bias and distortions. Click here to give your tax-deductible donation to NewsBusters.
- Josh St. Louis's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
This must be the second part
Submitted by lesterwink23 on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 1:27pm.
This must be the second part of that vaunted "Dan Rather School of Journalism" that Brian Williams said Scott Pelley belongs to...as a compliment. When you're not fabricating stories and lying about a sitting president, ignore stories that are embarrassing or harmful to your preferred political party. The prime-time lineup at MSDNC are also students of this school, no doubt.
Don’t care…
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 1:44pm.
Have to say the Edwards trial holds no interest for me.
When a Republican politician gets caught lying, cheating, covering-up, or behaves in immoral ways – I’m disappointed, but not really surprised.
On the other hand, I expect Democrats to be liars, cheaters, etc.
- Grump :o)
The only reason I have
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:02pm.
The only reason I have followed it was in the hope that would show the people of this state that elected him to the senate what a POS scumbag he is. Maybe, just maybe they won't make the same mistake again.
Well, hope it has caused...
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:07pm.
... some people to start paying attenion. My best to you Rick.
- Grump
Doggone it, Grump!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 1:52pm.
You completely stole my thunder! ;->
Sorry...
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:04pm.
...felt the need to comment on something useless. It was either this thread or the "Betty White" one.
- Grump :o)
I still don't know what the
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 1:53pm.
I still don't know what the outcome will be. The judge has lowered the bar somewhat for a conviction. She will still instruct the jury that even though the trial has revealed that Silky Pony is a POS scumbag they can't use that to convict him.
Imagine Edward. R Pelley in the production meeting:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:08pm.
"Yes, Garth, it IS a huge story, but because as you know I am a partisan hack and I am simply going to ignore it."
Come on, people! Don't you
Submitted by TE on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:19pm.
Come on, people! Don't you know that Scott Pelley and CBS would also ignore this story if it were Sarah Palin on trial in this criminal case instead of John Edwards?
The local cable news I watch
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:21pm.
The local cable news I watch in the morning (NY1) has even reported on Edwards trial. But can you guess what bit of information they have yet to mention? Correct!!! They never mention the party he belonged to.
Never do they mention that he is a Democrat.
Friggin libturds.
It's probably because outside of a small group of conservatives
Submitted by 4for4 on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:39pm.
Relatively few people care what happens to a former US senator who's trial outcome has no effect on the troubles facing America today.
Oh there it is above. Scuba Dude crying foul because someone forgot to call Edwards a Democrat. I guess you had to look up his party affiliation since you're obviously the only American alive who doesn't know Edwards is a Democrat. Why God? Why? Why can't they all do it my way? WHY???
Finally trying out that sleeper account?
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:48pm.
Averaging a post every 8 weeks? Welcome, although I doubt you'll be around long.
If you'd managed to read the news or watch it much, you'd see that the mention of D affiliation, when it comes to corruption or criminal wrongdoing, is much like what the cat leaves behind, covered up until it stops stinking.
We get more Trolls and
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:59pm.
We get more Trolls and sleaper account activations whenever ObamAA+ is in trouble.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
We get more Trolls and
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:59pm.
We get more Trolls and sleaper account activations whenever ObamAA+ is in trouble.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Yes, let's ignore he was a presidential candidate in 2008.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:50pm.
Now get back to work, Pelley.
Yet another example of the
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:54pm.
Yet another example of the public education system.
Well done.
Purposely missing the point
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 9:09pm.
Ah, but if Edwards were a Republican, I bet your attitude would be completely different.
And the media not indicating Edwards is a Dem is a simple example of bias by omission. The implication, which has flown far above your head, is that the Democratic Party (like everything on the Left) Never Does Wrong.
But please, keep posting those substantive posts where you continue to defend the indefensible.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
4for4 ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 4:53pm.
ever consider that the 'troubles' currently facing this country might be well outside the responsibility of a small group of conservatives?
Partisanship isn't necessarily a bad thing - a tremendous amount exists on NB threads relative conservative thought - and while politicians of both Parties most certainly fall short of perfection, the blindly rabid liberal bullsh*t you espouse merely enjoinders thoughts of just how badly your Lib-Dim heroes have screwed the pooch.
That you apparently don't see the possibility of devastation coming down the pike is bad enough; but taking the time to type out such twaddle as you post on rare occasions underscores just how stupid you really are.
"The liberal troll, when he dies,
should have erected, to the skies,
a monument to his sordid wit,
a statue built of solid shit."
MD
You misused enjoinders
Submitted by 4for4 on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 5:40pm.
stupid.
4for4 ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 6:40pm.
Yep.
" ---enjoinders thoughts of just how badly your Lib-Dim heroes have screwed the pooch."
Should have read 'enjoins' rather than enjoinders; no such word as enjoinders in my dictionary.
Enjoin - synonym for 'command' - which is precisely what your lib bullshit does - commands thoughts related to just how badly Lib-Dims have screwed up.
Might have been marrying thoughts of a 'rejoinder' to 'enjoin'; regardless, you are still a doofus liberal putz.
Parse that, ass munch.
MD
Enjoinder is a legal term
Submitted by 4for4 on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:29am.
Do you wake up every morning wondering what happened with the John Edwards trial the day before, only to flip on CBS to find no coverage at all? Then you turn to another network that is covering the trial but they don't call John Edwards a Democrat every time his name is mentioned, which apparently confuses you to no end?
If Edwards goes to prison it doesn't change my life. Explain how it changes yours, or your concerns in regards to a 21st century society not privy to such information. You know we're talking about the really stupid people who think Edwards is a Republican.
Do you know what the mission
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:13pm.
Do you know what the mission of this website is? It is right there on the top of the page underneath "NewsBusters". It reads "Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias" (emphasis mine).
Now that we have cleared that up, the bias the media shows by not mentioning the party that this politician belong to is a "bias by omission". Do you understand that? Most likely not since you appear to be a new formed troll.
Thanks, Scoob. ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 12:19am.
Ol' 4for4 seems a tad uptight.
Don't suppose the Lib-Dims poopin', slippin' on it, and fallin' into it has anything to do with that, hmmm?
"Enjoinder" is a legal term.
Wow.
Hoo noo?
Where's my pal Jer when I need him?
MD
That's all you have?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 12:31am.
So what? Are you going to demand that NB posters be arrested for daring to use legal terms outside of the legal profession?
In the meantime, read the mission statement of this website a few thousand times. Scuba Dude was nice enough to point it out for you.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Does anyone know what happened with the trial yesterday?
Submitted by 4for4 on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 8:24am.
I don't.
And now I feel my life is completely ruined.
Sigh.
Seems it was ruined
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 9:03am.
Long before that?
Being a smartass only gets you so far
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 12:14am.
As much as I love smartassery, I love it even more when paired with things like "substance" and "intellect".
4for4, "substance" is - forget it.
"Intellect" is - sheesh, never mind!
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Your life was ruined when your mom
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 12:30am.
stopped breast feeding you last week.
Anyone hear anything about the trial today?
Submitted by 4for4 on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 4:07pm.
Me either.
Pretty decent breast feeding insult. No really, good one.
0for4...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 11:11pm.
Sounds to me like you are the one who is more deeply obsessed with this trial than you let on.
It would be nice if you could come up with one substantive post. But then, maybe you are too busy dreaming about becoming Edwards's personal hairdresser to be troubled with such silliness.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So basically you are
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 8:46am.
So basically you are confirming what this website is all about.
Bias by omission.
Why is the LSM ignoring the trial of the person who would have been second in command?