The Sunday Times (UK) has just ratcheted up the pressure on the American media in their continuing effort to maintain their silence on the alleged John Edwards scandal. While becoming the largest English language newspaper so far to publish the juicy details, The Sunday Times, in tomorrow's edition, also took a bit of delight in tweaking the American newspapers for their desperate efforts to put a lid on this scandal such as the directive by the Los Angeles Times muzzling their staff from reporting on this as has been chronicled here in NewsBusters today. The Sunday Times story set the tone with this catchy headline, "Sleaze scuppers Democrat golden boy," followed by this subtitle, "Gotcha: Senator John Edwards, whose wife has cancer, has been caught in a sex scandal that ends his vice-presidential hopes." The Sunday Times story itself goes where the American MSM fears to tread (emphasis mine):
SCRATCH John Edwards off the list of potential vice-presidential candidates. The former White House contender, who had been hoping to get the nod from Barack Obama, is in the midst of a full-blown sex scandal.
Every supermarket shopper knows that the preternaturally youthful former senator for North Carolina may have fathered a love child with a film-maker while Elizabeth, his saintly wife, is dying of cancer. There are sensational new details on the National Enquirer website, although most of the media have done their best to ignore them.
Following that dig at the American media, The Sunday Times continues exposing how the MSM here have kept mum on this story:
The story has been bubbling away for months, but so far there has been not a word about it in the mainstream newspapers, even though Edwards was John Kerry’s running mate in 2004 and has been tipped for a prominent job in an Obama administration – if not vice-president, then attorney-general or antipoverty tsar.
Edwards volunteered recently: “I’m prepared to consider seriously anything, anything [Obama] asks me to do for our country.”
He can stop waiting by the telephone. News of the “gotcha” rapidly circulated on the internet via the Drudge Report and has been buzzing on the blogs. The Enquirer’s story appears to be well sourced.
The Sunday Times also takes a direct jab at the Los Angeles Times for muzzling their own staff:
He can stop waiting by the telephone. News of the “gotcha” rapidly circulated on the internet via the Drudge Report and has been buzzing on the blogs. The Enquirer’s story appears to be well sourced.
According to the magazine, Edwards arrived at the Beverly Hilton on Monday at 9.45pm after attending a meeting on homelessness in Los Angeles and was dropped off at a side entrance. Two rooms were allegedly booked for Hunter in a friend’s name.
Edwards emerged hours later and was confronted by journalists from the Enquirer. His usual spokesmen and defenders have scurried for cover behind a wall of “no comment”, while the details of the story have gone unchallenged.
Even so, Tony Pierce, editor of the Los Angeles Times, issued an edict to the paper’s own bloggers to stay off the subject. “Because the only source has been the National Enquirer, we have decided not to cover the rumours or salacious speculations,” he wrote.
Mickey Kaus, a blogger for Slate magazine, leaked the memo. He noted: “This was a sensational scandal that the Los Angeles Times and other mainstream papers passionately did not want to uncover when Edwards was a formal candidate and now that the Enquirer seems to have done the job for them it looks like they want everyone to shut up while they fail to uncover it again.”
Ouch! And the New York Times is also a target of The Sunday Times' withering criticism in the hypocrisy department:
The New York Times has not deigned to touch the story, although it recently ran thousands of words on a relationship between McCain and a female lobbyist, which appeared to be based more on innuendo than fact.
It's going to be much tougher, and embarrassing, for the American media to remain mum on the alleged Edwards scandal now that The Sunday Times has accused them of covering it up.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Just pondering a hypothetical here:
July 26, 2008 - 18:51 ET by needleIf some elements of the MSM should deign to report any information on the Edwards matter (which is generally conceded to be in taboo off-limits territory along with any favorable information concerning Republicans in general and the War in Iraq in particular), I wonder if we will be informed of Mr. Edwards's political party associations, assuming he has some.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Just sickening how the msm
July 26, 2008 - 19:05 ET by HumanEventsJust sickening how the msm ignores this Edwards affair. How laughable of the LA Times to use the excuse that no one else of their liberal clique has reported on it. So if CBS news or Time, etc. should report on it, THEN they'll go ahead and follow suit. But as long as they all agree to shun the story, then they all have the pathetic excuse to individually stay away. Wow.
Great point too how the msm not only want ballistic about Larry Craig since he was a Republican, but that the New York Times went with the bogus story about John McCain. And McCain immediately and swiftly addressed this and showed that the story had no legs or substance to it at all. Whereas John Edwards hasn't done anything but say, "It's a tabloid, it's full of lies and trash".
Edwards is guilty as sin. I'm sure he's simply following the precedent that the Great Stainmaker (Bill Clinton) left for sleazy Democrat politicians. You first say, "This allegation is false!" Then you say you have no more comments. Then when it's all obvious to everyone that you are indeed guilty you issue a non-apology that the msm will gladly classify as an apology: "I deeply regret if my actions may have caused my wife or anyone else any pain."
I would say at least now we know Edwards is toast for any future elections, but then you look at Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton and have to say well maybe not. But he is finished as far as any chances of Obama picking him as Veep.
D vs. R
July 26, 2008 - 19:06 ET by Free StinkerCommit Adultary? Not News. (for D)
Tap your foot in a Men's room stall. News. (for R)
Discover that a U.S.
July 26, 2008 - 19:41 ET by Cureboy675Discover that a U.S. Senator has been arrested for lewd conduct in a public place. News.
Overhear a rumor that a former U.S Senator might be screwing around on his wife. Not News.
Might be ? ROFL! I gotta
July 26, 2008 - 19:51 ET by Free StinkerMight be ?
ROFL! I gotta give you credit for sticking to the party line.
Thank you. Most kind. And
July 26, 2008 - 20:12 ET by Cureboy675Thank you. Most kind. And likewise, I give you credit for sticking to the party line mantra that every last corner of the mainstream media (except, of course, for the noble, selfless staff of the National Enquirer) is biased towards liberals.
I'm just not sure what you would have them do. "Breaking news just into us: The supermarket check-out-line tabloid 'The National Enquirer' is claiming that John Edwards is screwing around on his wife. Granted...Nobody, including Fox News, has been able to independently verify these claims. But still: We're just gonna throw it out there....We now return you to our previous story: Barack Obama has managed to pack in a crowd of 700,000 at a rally in a Berlin broom closet"
If you remember the MSM
July 26, 2008 - 20:42 ET by Kenny BunkportIf you remember the MSM wouldn't touch the story about Jesse Jackson's love child either. It took the National Enquirer to break that one too. Once the evidence was overwhelming, the MSM finally made mention of it. Their take was "So the man had a moment of humanity [weakness]. Lets move on and forget about this unfortunate disclosure."
So what if it's the NE? I thought the media had reporters, investigators, and journalists, whose job IT IS TO DIG into these stories to find the truth. If the accusation is baseless, then you exonerate him. If it's true, you have a scoop.
It's bull***t for the MSM to claim that they won't go after a story because it surfaced in a tabloid. That's SUPPOSED to be their job, to get to the bottom of the story or discredit it, not sit on the sidelines and wait for the evidence to come to them.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
↑ Furthermore Cureboy
July 26, 2008 - 21:54 ET by Cool ArrowThe outing of Rev. Jesse Jackson brought into the light his "keepin" of his mistress and love child with tax exempt Rainbow/Push funds.
Jesse's mistress rolled on him and admitted the Good Reverend had sccessfully insisted on two previous abortions from this woman.
Now, could somebody please give me a sermon about Republican hypocrisy?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Suppose it had been Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson....
July 26, 2008 - 20:49 ET by trak65Cureboy -- Your first post about what is "news" and what is "not news" has some merit in a perfect world. But would "not news" apply to the same story line about comparable non-office holders like Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson? If you're honest, you have to admit it would be "news" -- big time.
Fox reported that a security guard corroborated the Enquirer's account. Why did no other outlet inteview this guy? It's obvious: the story does not fit their biased template that Democrats are Good and Republicans are Corrupt.
If it were Mitt Romney or
July 26, 2008 - 21:33 ET by Cureboy675If it were Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. I would still find it incredibly irresponsible to report on a story attributed to the freaking National Enquirer.
I read that Fox story. Where the guy didn't even know who John Edwards was and, once he was shown a picture said, "Yeah that's the guy". I also notice that story said they had been unable to verify the National Enquirer's claims.
You honestly think if some real evidence came up the liberally biased mainstream media would just ignore a story about a former Vice Presidential nominee screwing around on his cancer-ridden wife? They aren't that loyal. They'd be able to milk that for several days. I don't remember a shortage of coverage about Bill Clinton messing around on Hillary.
I tell you what. I'll make you a promise. If somebody like Fox News, or any news source that isn't found next to the Soap Opera Digest in the check-out line of the supermarket, comes up with some kind of irrefutable evidence, or finds somebody in Edwards camp that has decided to spill the beans on this, and the rest of the media keeps quiet about it. Then I will say, hell yeah, its a liberal media bias conspiracy.
In the meantime, I want you to publicly condemn the mainstream media for not reporting on other Enquirer exclusives. Like this gem where Laura Bush threatened to divorce a sitting United States president after Hurricane Katrina if he didn't quit drinking:
http://www.nationale...
If it were Mitt Romney or
July 26, 2008 - 21:38 ET by Free StinkerIf it were Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. I would still find it
incredibly irresponsible to report on a story attributed to the
freaking National Enquirer.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Thanks. I needed the laugh.
Can't help it if you feel
July 26, 2008 - 21:41 ET by Cureboy675Can't help it if you feel that way, sweetie. Don't know what to tell you.
Don't know what to tell
July 26, 2008 - 21:44 ET by Free StinkerDon't know what to tell you.
No need to fret sugar. I'm sure your leaders will give you serfs new talking points so you know what to say when conversing with citizens.
"They're both doofuses!" --Mark Levin (speaking of Obama and McCain)
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
July 26, 2008 - 21:50 ET by Cureboy675Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Thanks. I needed the laugh.
(Did I get the number of ha's right?)
You got that wrong too.
July 26, 2008 - 21:54 ET by Free StinkerYou got that wrong too.
Ta ta troll!
Here is the difference
July 26, 2008 - 22:23 ET by trak65I agree that stories should not begin with "The National Enquirer is reporting that...." But the Edwards story rings true and, you have to admit, the non-denials remind you of Bill Clinton's "there 'is' no improper relationship" or whatever the quote was. The stories on Clinton came out when they exploded because investigators were alleging perjury, but it also came out that a lot of organizations had known about the "improper relationship" for months -- even before the 1996 election.
I suspect the Bush divorce threat story was checked out and if it had been proven true it would have been reported. I suspect the Edwards story is not being checked out because the press doesn't want to know. Maybe I'm just too suspicious!
"surrogates try to attack the Enquirer, until that doesn't work"
July 27, 2008 - 05:00 ET by sarcasmoWe're seeing my prediction of a few days ago come true. Thanks, Cureboy!
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Cure
July 26, 2008 - 21:33 ET by Free StinkerCure,
You forget that the National Enquirer broke the news about Gary Hart's affair with Donna Rice.
"They're both doofuses!" --Mark Levin (speaking of Obama and McCain)
You forget that they've
July 26, 2008 - 21:38 ET by Cureboy675You forget that they've been forced to pay monetary settlements to people like Carol Burnett, Cameron Diaz, Kate Hudson and Elizabeth Taylor for untrue accusations.
So just because they're right once in a while...A paper should be ready to accept everything they report as the gospel truth?
So just because they're
July 26, 2008 - 21:41 ET by Free StinkerSo just because they're right once in a while...A paper should be ready to accept everything they report as the gospel truth?
Who said accept everything they say as truth? The point is, they *have* been correct in the past. And about big stories, so your out of hand dismisal of them is not based on their accuracy.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
July 26, 2008 - 21:51 ET by Cureboy675Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Thanks. I needed the laugh.
↑ It's OK cureboy
July 26, 2008 - 21:59 ET by Cool ArrowIf similar allegations were made about Angelina Jolie, I'd probably blindly attack the messenger in much the same manner as you do now.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Seems to me they are
July 26, 2008 - 22:04 ET by general companySeems to me they are just about par with the Times and Post. Few right, few wrong, whose counting besides NB,,,
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Cool Arrow. You know what.
July 26, 2008 - 23:18 ET by Cureboy675Cool Arrow. You know what. You win. I just don't care anymore. I've really honestly been trying for months to have a civil conversation with people like you. Because, I'm weird, and I think its important to seek out those who have a different opinion, find out why they feel that way, and see if I can present a different point of view. And I have determined it is simply impossible with this group. I have agreed with a lot of you people on many different occassions. But the instant I, or any "Marxist/Nazi/Fascist/Socialist" Democrat, make a statement that might just go against something you believe, you freak.
You don't argue intelligently about it. You just become dimissive, pull out the "troll" card that you keep next to your keyboard and just mock somebody. You portray me as a babbling idiot who doesn't has own mind apart from what "the Messiah" whispers to me in my sleep. But you know what? I'm actually pretty damn smart. I don't usually brag about myself. But in your case, I'll indulge: If you knew, at my current age of 23, the job title I had, the money I take home, the car that I drive and the house that I own...Lets just say you'd realize pretty quick that I know what the hell I'm doing.
The only conclusion I can reach is that you won't be happy until you achieve a blissfully ignorant conservative utopian society where only those who agree with you are allowed to speak and those who do not need to be treated like a 4 year old who brings their mother a bouquet of dandelions, lest they be taken seriously.
I want to examine a theory. Why so much of the media tilts toward the left. People like you proceed with a theory that, somehow, despite the fact that about half the country leans right, 95% of the media has been seized by people who represent 50% of the country. Here's my theory: Those in power in the right realize that most Republicans are like you...And it just plain embarasses them. And yet they still need to find somebody to do the news.
People like you are an embarassment to your party and your country. You are just as closed-minded and inflexible as you are portrayed. You are simply incapable of civilized discourse. You are intolerant of anybody who doesn't agree with you on absolutely everything. The best word I can think of to describe you is stagnant.
Sadly, you and so many like you blind out those who would serve your party well. There are a very select few, Candace being the example I can think of right away, that are willing to actually sit down and discuss things. Able to see two sides of an issue. Able to disagree with somebody while being respectful instead of dismissive and childish. Able to have enough self-esteem to admit that they might be wrong once in a while. Able to make a intelligent point. Perfect example: In this thread she made an excellent counterpoint to my argument. But it gets lost among somebody repeating the word "ha" 700 times. It really says a lot about people like you when I have to weed through 25 "Cool Arrows" to find a single "Candace".
Long story short: You are beneath me and I don't want to waste any more time with people like you. Because it is, quite literally, a waste of time. You are ignorant and set in your ways and you will never see beyond what is already set in your mind. Trying to get you to do otherwise is simply futile. Really, how sad for you.
Now let me save you the time you would undoubtedly spend writing a stinging reply. Because I won't be back to read it. But feel free to proceed with your "Ding dong the troll is dead" sentiments that I am sure you are dying to use.
Problem is. You know its not accurate. I have proven myself capable of agreeing with the majority when appropriate and I have proven myself able to disagree in a respectful and intelligent manner. You are quite good at the former. But you need a lot of work on the latter.
Like The Cure said:
I don't want you anywhere near me. I don't want you anywhere near me. Get your f***ing world out of my head. I don't want your "us or them"
methinks the cureboy
July 26, 2008 - 23:47 ET bydoth protest too much
"You can not support the Troops if you do not support their Mission"
↑ I'm crushed botg
July 27, 2008 - 00:27 ET by Cool ArrowIt really says a lot about people like you when I have to weed through 25 "Cool Arrows" to find a single "Candace".
I prefer to believe I am unique, just like everybody else - amber's tagline.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
↑ cureboy
July 27, 2008 - 00:22 ET by Cool ArrowI'm cut to the quick. (which I've only recently learned is the part where your fingernails bleed when clipping them) PetAgree comercial - CNN. I would have cited FOX, but some hick Liberals might refer to me as "people like me"
Which brings us to the request I have for you.
Obviously you don't recognize strereotyping even when you are the one using it. Have you ever been stereotyped in a "people like you" sort of way? Guess not.
Better yet, find me one time I've painted another as a troll (except when accused first) and I'll apologize to you.
But if you'll track me, you'll find me getting snarky in all sorts of situations. Sorry about that chip on your shoulder.
Why don't you tell me the real reason you have a problem with my last post to you.
Throwing out "people like you" is an extremely weak attack, and it certainly ain't no defense.
"If you knew, at my current age of 23, the job title I had, the money I take home, the car that I drive and the house that I own...Lets just say you'd realize pretty quick that I know what the hell I'm doing."
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cure, you're one of the
July 27, 2008 - 00:30 ET by MrShyCure, you're one of the tolerant and willing-to-engage/debate NON-troll liberals around here. Okay? Candance isn't the only one who's respectful and not childish. And I'll contend, that many of us -- a majority, even -- are more like Candance.
Clearly, Cool and Cure (had to) aren't clicking, but that's no reason to stereotype us.
Btw, I've called people trolls, but it's when they've name-called me and been dismissive/rude, or they just post the same babbling stuff over and over, to everyone. THEY are deserving of the label.
You're not. Jer's not. Shawn's not. Bal.... well, we don't even know what he is. :p There are more.
EDIT: Btw, I really can't stand The Cure. But then, I also can't stand that you're 23 and own a home. :p
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
↑ et tu Shy?
July 27, 2008 - 00:39 ET by Cool ArrowOK, maybe Im missing the definition of "troll".
But if I fall into that category, I'm by gum the best damn troll I can possibly be.
And if you saw the job I have, the truck I drive, the house that's paid for, yeah, then you'd see just how important I view myself in cyberspace.
Doctor says I'm impotant and I'm trying to look the part.
cool
July 27, 2008 - 00:59 ET by MrShyYeah, that bit about the house, car, good job, pay, was sort of over the top, I'll agree. Well, again, libs really are often sort of shallow when you peel away the onion.
:p
But Cure is one I haven't had a tiff with... yet.... Flash, and that doofus, what's-his/her/it's-name, Goldbar, I've branded them both with the red letter "T".
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
↑ But what's the deal?
July 27, 2008 - 01:17 ET by Cool ArrowI jumped into a thread that had already degraded into:
And suddenly I'm the troll? I agree with a comment above. He doth protest too much.
Cool
July 27, 2008 - 01:39 ET by MrShyYeah, I saw that rather odd thread. :p
Why did you jump in then? Seems they were, uh, hitting it off. Did they eventually find a room?
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Don't know Shy
July 27, 2008 - 01:44 ET by Cool ArrowI guess I just think Anglina Jolie is fine.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
CA
July 27, 2008 - 01:53 ET by MrShyYeah, she's not for me... I'm one of the very few guys in this regard. Just too barbie-doll-ish.
Although I have 3 degrees of separation from her. Some time in the 80's Jennifer Anniston patted me on my head and said my name. An old friend knew her, and so I sort of knew her, barely. She might have been 16, I was 19, I think. And of course, you can make the chain connection from there.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Uh,
July 27, 2008 - 20:31 ET by RukusUh, yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawh!
"Nuke 'em 'til they... oh hell, just shoot 'em!"
Not just Gary Hart(pence)
July 27, 2008 - 05:03 ET by sarcasmoRush Limbaugh, too. The National Enquirer under the leadership of Mike Walker has been fair and balanced without regard to politics, IMO. Other media outlets would do well to emulate their hard work tracking down stories.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
sarc
July 27, 2008 - 05:23 ET by Cool ArrowYour admonishment of other media to emulate the Enquirer doesn't presuppose they should also fairly evaluate what is, in fact, newsworthy. Does it?
I'm loving how they attack the credetials of the NE rather than investigate the veracity of the story.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
The Enquirer evaluates
July 27, 2008 - 05:36 ET by sarcasmoWhat will sell, and lets the "newsworthy" judgments fall where they may. It's a method that's working for them, to the chagrin of hypocrites from both "major" parties (and, correct me if I'm wrong, but 0 "minor" party types). Now that other news outlets are talking to hotel security, the Edwards surrogates will soon be giving up on "attack the Enquirer" as a strategy, IMO.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Smooth move
July 27, 2008 - 05:40 ET by Cool ArrowFiling charges on hotel security was a stroke of genius.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
They have a point
July 27, 2008 - 05:50 ET by sarcasmoThe Enquirer journalists were paid official hotel guests, and Edwards wasn't, so they're right to ask why the hotel's securitygoons were protecting the politician who can't keep it in his pants from their own guests. IMO. Plus this is getting hilarious. :)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Cool
July 27, 2008 - 22:28 ET by Kenny BunkportI haven't seen the media shy away from rumors about Miley, Brittany, Lindsey, or Paris. I've even seen them link to the Enquirer. You can't say the MSM is adverse to gossip.
And what about Mel Gibson on the front page for two weeks? Originally the official report by the police didn't mention his anti-semitic tirade. But dogged detective work by the MSM made him finally fess up. How truly newsworthy was that incident? I'd call that one tabloid fodder too.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
Right Kenny
July 27, 2008 - 22:33 ET by Cool ArrowSeems the MSM rportage is replete with exampls of gossipy tidbits they are "above" repeating.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cureboy675,While I agree
July 26, 2008 - 22:09 ET by futbolisgreat1Cureboy675,
While I agree that something being reported on the National Enquirer shouldn't be exactly major headlines, the hypocrisy of the left and the media on this is pathetic.
Do you remember a few months ago when the major news outlets ran with a story about John McCain having an affair? do you remember that?
The left, the mass media defended reporting on this tabloid story. Wouldn't you then think that if they believed that it was important to ran witha tabloid story about an alleged affair by John McCain that they would also believe that it is major news an alleged affair by John Edwards?
If the media is not biased, why the different treatment of two similar stories?
If Edwards story can't be talked about and printed because it can't be verified, why did the media and the left run with the John McCain affair story which also has never been proven or verified?
maybe you can answer the question of why the difference.
give it a try. c'mon...don't be shy now.
futbal
July 26, 2008 - 22:10 ET by candanceI posted a link to that very fact and it's been conveniently ignored. ;)
Candance, Yes, like most
July 26, 2008 - 22:30 ET by futbolisgreat1Candance,
Yes, like most lefties, Cureboy finds himself in a precarious situation.
If he replies to us he acknowledges the fact that the media is biased towards the left.
If he ignores the facts then he proves that all he is doing is parroting left wing talking points.
I think Cureboy might have been unware of the McCain story or he is being dishonest. Either way, it is the way of Liberals either ignorant about the facts or liars...well actually most of the times most of them are both. :-)
whoops! Guess cureboy went
July 27, 2008 - 08:43 ET by gordonwhoops! Guess cureboy went back to moveon to report. Come on, cureboy, tell us about MaCain's story in the NYT and how you disagreed with the coverage. Maybe we should be looking for cureman, huh?
you're right cureboy
July 26, 2008 - 21:18 ET by candanceA respectable paper like the LA Times or NY Times would never run a story about a Republican based on rumors.
Oops, look what I found:
http://newsbusters.o...
"Overhear a rumor that a
July 26, 2008 - 21:51 ET by ckc1227"Overhear a rumor that a former U.S Senator might be screwing around on his wife. Not News."
And yet the NY Times ran a front page story alleging the same thing about John McCain on even less than a rumor.
Move along, nothing to see here. There is no media bias.
ckc -- oh the MSM will even
July 27, 2008 - 04:56 ET by Jack Bauerckc -- oh the MSM will even manufacture "rumors" from Democratic hacks when it suits them.
Andrea Mitchell, yesterday putting the DEMOCRATIC spin on the Gaffobama non-visit to the injured troops, had the TOTAL GALL to opine that the "scuttlebutt" is friends of John McCain with influence in the Pentagon got them to stop the Obama visit.
Good grief. The woman says on National TV that she's heard utterly unfounded rumors being touted by the Obama campaign, which had to that point already given TWO other different explanations.
That's how they roll.
↑ Wake up Edwards!
July 26, 2008 - 19:31 ET by Cool ArrowJohn Edwards, you arrogant SOB! Let me spell it out to you.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
IMO Obama was never going to pick him for VP
July 27, 2008 - 05:06 ET by sarcasmoThe reason this scandalette is so important is to keep the Ken-doll from eventually becoming Attorney General.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
YIKES sarc
July 27, 2008 - 05:26 ET by Cool ArrowThat one sent a chill up my spine.
note: Chills are not a sexual thing with me as might be surmised of PMSNBC "journalists".
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
The good news is that the
July 26, 2008 - 19:31 ET by celatorThe good news is that the days when the MSM could censor a story (and they have censored many over the years) are gone forever.
Through NB and the many other blogs, boards, analyses and comments broadcast around the world at the speed of light on the internet, an event like Edward's little fling with his filly cannot be stopped. Through their own incompetence, the MSM have become irrelevant, but they are still in denial.
Buggy whips, anyone?
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
It was 2 years ago.
July 26, 2008 - 19:50 ET by pbthinker2 years ago, the MSM gave the Democrats all the help they could, between the culture of corruption charges, the Foley affair, etc. Now, with an election coming up, where's Edwards, where's Wexler? Why didn't the MSM properly vet Obama, during the primaries? We know they didn't do it because they only asked him tough questions during one debate and then the media attacked their own for being so tough.
Let's face it, if these guys were Republicans, and Obama were a Republican, the media would be completely different. If Obama were a Republican they would expose how unprepared he is for the presidency, we know how they cover him as a Democrat.
Wexler would have been front page news for the past week, had he been a Republican. Instead, it's just local news here in Florida and no one is pushing it.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
There is no scandal here.
July 26, 2008 - 20:39 ET by cocodrieLiberals are allowed to have affairs, even in the oval office. Has it been renamed the oral office yet? They are allowed to permanently silence their lovers. They are allowed homosexual encounters of all kinds. They are allowed all manner of illegal financial dealings. The list goes on and on without end.
Leave it to the foreigners to do the jobs Americans won't do
July 26, 2008 - 21:14 ET by Jim TreacherBesides the much-needed shots at American media, they give a good summary of the whole story.
I love the Washington Post guy they quote who says, "Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage." How about any coverage? And we're not supposed to care because Edwards is no longer an elected official and he's no longer running for anything, even though it started on the campaign trail. They don't think Edwards supporters deserve to know what was going on? Guess not.
I guess by 2 Americas,
July 26, 2008 - 22:08 ET by ckc1227I guess by 2 Americas, Edwards meant having a woman on the east coast, and having a woman on the west coast.
Maybe it was for the greater good
July 27, 2008 - 08:10 ET by txcoMy hope is the MSM is holding off on reporting this story out of respect for Mrs. Edwards and family. Maybe they are giving John time to deal with this over the weekend with his family. That would be noble. If they continue to ignore it as proof mounts then their motives are probably less than noble.
Respect for his family? Uh,
July 27, 2008 - 08:48 ET by gordonRespect for his family? Uh, I'll take that bet. You're not going to see anything about this from the NYT until some other media outlet rubs their nose in it...repeatedly. Lets see, NYT had the Clinton story, but Drudge forced them to finally print it. Thats how it's gonna go from now on.
And I had assumed he was
July 27, 2008 - 08:42 ET by Jack BauerAnd I had assumed he was only interested in screwing everyone else in between!