Liberal talk radio host Stephanie Miller laughed-off Michael Medved’s accusation that the John Edwards sex scandal "reinforces the conviction that a lot of Americans have that the news media aren't on the level, that they're biased" on Tuesday’s American Morning: "You know, this is the myth again... of this, you know, liberal media. It's ridiculous. You can't report something that you don't have evidence on, you know. Until Edwards admitted this, there was no hard evidence. It's not something that you would report."
Earlier, Miller had jokingly, perhaps rudely, that the earlier rumors of the scandal were akin to someone making a wild accusation against Medved: "I know and love Michael and I'm tempted to say something completely unsubstantiated about his personal life right now and see if he can disprove it." Medved initially replied with a mere smile and a mild chuckle.
The two talk radio hosts appeared in a discussion segment which began 24 minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour of the CNN program. Co-host Kiran Chetry, reacting to Miller, echoed her sentiment: "Yeah. I mean -- and just in fairness, CNN was investigating this as well and, you know, there just weren't simply enough facts to go with it." I guess Miller and the folks at CNN didn’t take the report and photos of Edwards being at a California hotel with his mistress and alleged love child seriously.
Chetry continued and asked Medved, "And the other interesting thing is when you pay sources, I mean, do you get different reporting, Michael?" He replied, "Well, sure, sure you do. But the point about this is that Rielle Hunter, the principal involved, had said to a number people that Edwards was father of her baby. I mean, look, this whole thing is seemly -- unseemly. It's unpleasant..."
After the two debated the presidential race for the second part of the segment, Chetry briefly returned to the Edwards at the very end:
CHETRY: Michael before you leave, I just want to ask Michael to please elaborate a little bit on what you said earlier. You said that Rielle Hunter was telling people that John Edwards was the father of her child.
MEDVED: Yes, she was. I mean, again, that's what she said.
CHETRY: According to whom?
MEDVED: According to the National Enquirer and actually, according to a number of people who came forward and said that they had heard from this lady who, after all, got $114,000 from the Edwards' campaign for making videos that for which she had no experience and traveled around the world, to Africa and elsewhere with Edwards. Edwards is irrelevant right now. He's not going to be on the ticket. I think he probably will have a political future after we go through this whole process of forgiveness and what have you. But I do think that Edwards' situation illustrates to people why it's important to look at somebody who isn't completely narcissistic, driven by ego and self love and self regard, and that's a weakness for Obama. People do have a sense that this is a guy who's rather deeply in love with himself and that's not necessarily an attractive feature in a presidential nominee.
MILLER: (Laughs)
CHETRY: Stephanie, I know you don't agree.
MILLER: (Laughs) Wow. That's brand-new in politics, someone with an ego. Wow.
MEDVED: (Laughs)
CHETRY: I want to thank both of you for being with us. Stephanie Miller and Michael Medved, thank you.
MILLER: Thank you.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Stick to your (cap) guns
August 12, 2008 - 16:41 ET by SickofLibsThis is the new liberal media paradigm:
Assume any incriminating photos are photoshopped until proven otherwise.
And ignore those polls that show that most folks believe the MSM is overwhelmingly biased.
I cannot stand Miller. I
August 12, 2008 - 16:46 ET by bigtimerI cannot stand Miller.
I only barely tolerate Medved anymore.
Chetry has turned into a biased bore.
CNN is the pits....Communist News Network.
Oh well....
I'm moving on....
Btw...I understood the hypocrisy and bias, the circling the wagon for the dem scumball....same ol' same ol'.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Chetry gushes over Edwards
August 12, 2008 - 19:16 ET by KrisWhen Kiran was at Fox, she gushed like a giddy schoolgirl over Edwards. Typical brainless lib. I can remember CNN being all over that John McCain affair story from the NYT. Now, just where was the proof in that case? OH, I FORGOT! John McCain is running for President against the man whom the media has ordained as Jesus himself, Barack Obama. Where is my mind these days?
Really, kris, you have got
August 12, 2008 - 22:03 ET by motherbeltReally, kris, you have got to pull it together!
The McCain rumor from how many years ago was worthy of being reported....even though it was just a rumor. A rumor that someone suspected that McCain might have an improper relationship. Now there's concrete proof you can run with. Not this two-bit imaginary stuff of photos of someone at the hotel where his alleged mistress is staying!
The thing that galls me the most is that the Democrats always ganged up and jumped on any Republican who strayed, citing the "hypocrisy" of someone from the supposed "family values" party. And the media piled on, as if Democrats couldn't be hypocrites because they had no values to betray. Yet when one of their own, after making a big deal about the lovey-lovey relationship with his wife, giggling about Wendy's and all, and all the romance and pathos, gets caught off the porch, they are bored and uninterested, and instructing everyone that this is no big deal, ho-hum. And while the stain of a Republican scandal affects the whole party, the Democrats are so pure that none of this will touch them; least of all the Chosen One.
mmmmm....yeah.
August 12, 2008 - 22:50 ET by Scout FinchDon't bet on that, mb.
You can't report something
August 12, 2008 - 16:50 ET by Free ThinkerYou can't report something that you don't have evidence on, you know.
So, is this the new policy of the msm? Did anyone send this memo to the NYT, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC yet? This would have been a nice policy to have had when McCain was falsly accused of having an affair a couple of months ago. Or better yet, see the blog post prior to this one about Valerie Plame.
You can't report something that you don't have evidence on
August 12, 2008 - 17:04 ET by wizardjrUnless of course it is unchecked fauxtography, or unchecked wild-eyed accusations by towel-head terrorists, etc., etc. Are these people so blinded by self delusion they actually cannot see what they are doing?
I mean the pictures of The Breck Girl with a baby are no less "evidence" than the National Guard Papers fiasco, or the pictures of that little boy getting shot "by Israelis" that turned out to be actually Palestinians. So why didn't they run with it? We all know. I'd just like to get them to 'fess up.
The wonderful irony, of
August 12, 2008 - 17:09 ET by celatorThe wonderful irony, of course, is that the denial of media bias was made on CNN.
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
Their sins of omission may outweigh their sins...
August 12, 2008 - 18:27 ET by ThalpyTheir sins of omission may outweigh their sins of commission. If, as Stephanie Miller suggests, "you can't report something that you don't have evidence on, you know," how is it that she can't or won't report on something that she does have evidence on? Once again, we have to keep in mind that the media is indoctrinating, not educating.
If Senator Edwards had been a Republican, the Fires of Hell couldn't have kept Stephanie Miller or any of her comrades away from the story.
It's tough to report on "stuff"
August 12, 2008 - 19:42 ET by ahusserwhen your fingers are in your ears, eyes closed and singing "la,la,la,la,la..."
"..you can't report
August 12, 2008 - 22:25 ET by celator"..you can't report something that you don't have evidence on, you know.."
Maybe she should have said, "You can't report on something that's not on the teleprompter."
Of course, these chin waggers are not reporters, they are news readers, and not very good ones at that. Sorta like Obama is a decent speech reader, not an inspiring speaker.
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
The wonderful irony, of
August 12, 2008 - 22:07 ET by motherbeltThe wonderful irony, of course, is that the denial of media bias was made on CNN.
No kidding. I'm surprised Miller's and Chetry's faces didn't simply crack from the stress of not laughing as it was said.
Now that would have been
August 12, 2008 - 22:20 ET by celatorNow that would have been real television ;+}. You do wonder what the blue blazes goes through their alleged brains when they say this stuff.
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
You want evidence of bias? http://newsbusters.org
August 12, 2008 - 17:30 ET by KC MulvilleCurious. NewsBusters turns three, which means that NB has at least three years of documentation of media bias. And Miller's attitude is to laugh it all off with a chuckle. I keep thinking of Police Squad, with Leslie Nielsen as Frank Drebbin, telling people "Nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing to see here."
Besides, isn't the idea of investigation to compile evidence? And so how does Miller explain the fact that the Enquirer reporters found evidence? They found it because they tried to find it. You definitely won't find anything if you've already decided there won't be any. This story crawled up to the mainstream media and bit it on the ass ... and even after that, the media still ignored it.
You definitely won't find
August 12, 2008 - 22:30 ET by celatorYou definitely won't find anything if you've already decided there won't be any."
And here, my friend, is where you have hit the jackpot insight. You have won two free movie passes to your local theater. :+}
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
You look for evidence when
August 12, 2008 - 17:48 ET by Hunter12You look for evidence when you want something to be true and you bury your head in the sand when you're hoping something isn't. The MSM head in the sand (or some place dark and smelly) demonstrated that they didn't want the Breck girl to be guilty.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Apparently they have different standards of evidence for (R).
August 12, 2008 - 17:53 ET by c5thenNYTand CNN reported on the rumor of an affair between McCain and a lobyist years ago that had been debunked then, and had no new information. Is that their 'standard' of evidence? Some one said.....
Yet for a promenant Democrat, they want absolute proof, before even mentioning anything that might smack of a moral lapse.
Dear Stephanie Miller...you can make up anything you want and report it as rumor, but unless it turns out to be true, you are open to liable and slander. The National Enquirer has put all the MSM to shame on this one not because of superior reporting or special inside information, but simply because the MSMs well documented bias caused them to make a political decision in place of a journalistic one, or even a business decision.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
evidence to report
August 13, 2008 - 02:20 ET by AgnosticThe media's restraint in advancing stories is appreciated by several marines once in Haditha. The media must have had overwhelming evidence to run that story the way it was plastered over every broadcast. Funny how none of that evidence made it to the trial.
The media also showed that same need for hard truth when reporting about flushed korans. They obviously had a 'tidy-bowl water' saturated koran as evidence to run headline report after headline report on that event.
And the young men at Duke also appreciate your need for proof before smearing their reputations and dragging them through the mud for weeks on the front page and lead stories. Perhaps that proof you had for this story would have been helpful to the disgraced prosecutor so he wouldn't have had to dismiss all the charges.
There are thousands of examples of the media reporting without proof but in their defense they can only report on what they are told and when they surround themselves in a cocoon of liberal opinions then they report the 'truth' as seen by the left.
→ OUCH Agnostic
August 13, 2008 - 02:25 ET by Cool ArrowYou'd bring a Howitzer to a knife fight wouldn't you.
I hadn't even thought of these obvious proofs of judicious restraint in the fight to uphold high standards of journalistic integrity.
You really cleared the field with that post.
I ♣ my seal
cool
August 13, 2008 - 02:41 ET by AgnosticI can take most of babble coming from the press with a light hearted disgust but this kneejerk defense of the press was too insulting to the many victims (too often military) of the presses desire to get a story to press. BTW, isn't that one of the excuses they use when they caught not getting a story right, "we had to get the story quickly in order to meet the deadline and did not have time to gather all of the information"?
The Edwards story stands out more as media bias in one major way that I haven't seen listed. John Edwards, the figure being protected by the media in this story, does not fit a single characteristic of the 'victim'. The victim status of the characters in the media stories is usually what allows them to get away with their reporting without evidence. However, Edwards is a rich, white and influential and their attempts to paint him as a victim are hollow.
→ Agnostic
August 13, 2008 - 02:51 ET by Cool ArrowYet they continue to revel in their arrogance.
I ♣ my seal
NY Times had 4 of its top reporters on "McCain" affair
August 13, 2008 - 05:25 ET by Mystapitthttp://www.washingto...