Although the mainstream media has finally started to report on the John Edwards scandal now that he has admitted to an affair on ABC's Nightline following several reports by the National Enquirer, they continue to fall way behind in investigative reporting compared to the blogosphere. This is yet another reason why the public is relying more and more on the web for news rather than the MSM as NewsBusters editor, Matthew Sheffield, reported yesterday both here in NewsBusters and at the Washington Times. So what is the MSM excuse for being so far behind the ball in reporting on the Edwards scandal? According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the answer is money, not bias. Here is their defensive quote from a blog entry from Hollywood blogger, Sharon Waxman:
Here’s what I’ve learned over the years about tabloid journalism: it is usually the principals involved who provide the crucial details, for money. That’s why the information is so often on the nose.
How does the News of the World manage to be there just when Michael Jackson or Elizabeth Taylor leaves their plastic surgery appointment? It’s not by chance. Usually the doctor tips them off. Sometimes they even have the celebrity’s agreement.
My guess is that there is a simple reason why the mainstream media is unable to confirm the Edwards-Hunter affair during these past weeks. Because very few people knew what had been going on. Edwards’ staff didn’t know. Elizabeth Edwards didn’t know. The group may have been as small as three: Edwards, Hunter and her pal Bob McGovern.
One of those, in my view (and not Edwards), sold the information….
Money did pay a role in the initial investigation but how does Waxman and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution explain the fact that blogs, with limited monetary resources, are now able to scoop the MSM on this scandal on a fairly regular basis? One example of the MSM merely following the path paved by the blogosphere is this New York Times report yesterday that Edwards' finance chair, Fred Baron, not only paid Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young but also might have recommended their lawyers to them:
But what went unnoticed was that the two lawyers shared an important connection to Mr. Edwards that suggests they were part of an orchestrated effort to protect him, one that is continuing even after he admitted last week that he had an affair with Ms. Hunter but denied that he fathered her child. The lawyers are linked through Fred Baron, a wealthy Dallas lawyer and former finance chairman for the Edwards campaign who was a key player in the campaign’s response to the scandal. Mr. Gordon has worked with Mr. Baron on class-action personal injury cases,...
The Talkleft blog took offense at this "unnoticed" claim by the New York Times:
Unnoticed? The Times does not report that blogs such as Deceiver and Riehl World View have been reporting this for days.
And now, ladies and gentleman, a shocking new revelation in the John Edwards scandal. Of course, this revelation comes not from the MSM but from the blogosphere. DBKP, which has been one of the blogs leading the way in investigating the John Edwards scandal has just published of photo taken on December 30, 2006. You can see it below as well in much greater detail at this enlargement which clearly shows John and Elizabeth Edwards as well as Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, in the background holding up a video camera.
John Edwards has explained that he told his wife "slowly" that he was having an affair but that it ended in 2006. If this were the case, he must have spent all day on New Year's Eve in 2006 explaining the affair to his wife. And remember, MSM, when you publish this photo, please give the credit to the DBKP blog. Once again the blogosphere leads while you follow.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Not only that, maybe the
August 15, 2008 - 08:49 ET by dscottNot only that, maybe the MSM would like to take a crack at Edwards misrepresenting the longevity of his relationship the Rielle, he said he ended it in 2006 thus he couldn't have been the father, what he didn't say was he started up again with Rielle in 2007! It's like a company declaring chapter 7 bankruptcy and then the same principals create the next company using the same name with the year behind it in order not to be liable for any debts or guarantees even though the players, assets and equipment are the same. So Edwards being a lawyer, gave a lawyerly response - a misrepresentation of the facts...with intent to deceive. Yes, John Edwards you are responsible for what others are led to believe when you play coy with the facts, it's called lying by omission.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Love that pic
August 15, 2008 - 09:18 ET by BlondeKind of reminds me of Monica on the rat line.
I find it amusing that the National Enquirer and blogs are leading the MsM around by the nose with the Edwards "affair".
It's not over, not by a long shot. When there's this kind of money involved, people want to know what the "advocate of the poor" paid to cover up his indiscretions.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Sourcing
August 15, 2008 - 09:33 ET by P.J. GladnickThe MSM needs to be more upfront in giving credit to their sources which currently consists primarily of the National Enquirer and the blogosphere.
Speaking of the NE, let's
August 15, 2008 - 09:55 ET by dscottSpeaking of the NE, let's be mindful that there is a political agenda in their reporting, they are owned by a major Clinton supporter. In this case were it not for the desire to destroy any potential rival driven by the Clintons craven lust for power, the Edwards affair would have never seen the light of day. John Edwards was just Bill Clinton light.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Agreed about the Sourcing
August 15, 2008 - 10:21 ET by BlondeI still find it extremely amusing that:
(a) not only did the MsM not deign to even investigate the rumors two years ago;
(b) they pretended it didn't happen, ignoring it until the blogosphere drug them kicking and screaming into reporting the Edwards affair;
(c) they continue to attempt to downplay the importance of the story, thereby getting scooped, yet again;
(d) in their arrogance, when they finally do report something, they totally ignore (or forget to source) the "tabloid" NE, which apparently has the journalistic stones to actually DO some reporting, instead of regurgitating without accreditation, as the MsM does.
It just shows how totally corrupt, not to mention inept, the MsM actually is. And I think even those on the left side of the aisle are forced to acknowledge it as a FACT. Oops.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
You talk about corruption
August 15, 2008 - 11:04 ET by KillgraveYou talk about corruption and ineptitude, but I wonder how the stockholders feel about their MsM? The MsM deliberately held back a story that would sell a hell of a lot of newspapers, and get a lot of airtime. This is a clear case of MsM political bias getting in the way of profits.
The way this is going, all we will have left are blogs, talk radio, and NPR.
I visited my grandmother
August 15, 2008 - 10:06 ET by KillgraveI visited my grandmother recently, who lives in a nursing home. She gets all her information from the MSM. Anyway, she starting talking about the Edwards thing like it was something new. It was very interesting seeing, first-hand, the MSM at work.
However, she also whispered "I heard Obama is a Muslim". She votes straight-line Democrat. I didn't bother correcting her.
Come to think of it, I wonder if Obama's "never voted before in my life" brainless minions will be able to compensate for these retirees (a colossal voting block), who will probably not show up? This election is going to be very interesting.
Oh, you just hit a button
August 15, 2008 - 11:26 ET by dscottOh, you just hit a button there. I'm curious, does anyone know if the Dems made the effort like in previous years to get all the seniors out to vote in the primaries?? If so which camp made the effort Clinton or Obama or both? I would suspect that if Obama is successful fending off Clinton at the Convention, such efforts directed at seniors may dissappear.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
I know for a fact that two
August 15, 2008 - 11:50 ET by KillgraveI know for a fact that two staunch Democrat retirees, my mother and grandmother, would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat. But they balk at Barry.
Methinks the Obama camp will divert all those buses to the streets, and round up every bum they see staggering around. Something tells me that the seniors aren't going to give up their Bingo night this time around.
$50 For Furniture.
August 15, 2008 - 17:35 ET by SquonkamaticNewsobserver.com has a VERY eye opening report today accessible via Drudge about the three lawyers who were influential in giving the press their cock-and-bull reason to dismiss the affair back in December. It can be found here:
http://www.newsobser...
The layers of lies, deceit and double-talk that kept this story out of the headlines and thus extended Gomer Pyle's stay in the primaries all begins with these three jokers, which is for all intents & purposes an act of fraud pulled on his supporters since there is no way that Johnny Boy would have been a viable candidate if the story had broken at the time it first surfaced: Think of all the millions of dollars that were wasted by the continuation of his candidacy beyond the point where the affair became a reality. There is also substantial evidence to back up the inescapable conclusion that the Andrew Young angle on the father of the papoose is also a crock of steaming hamster excreta, so the lies and deceptions by Gomer and his cronies is continuing by maintaining that the poor little bastard child isn't his. As someone else noted yesterday Edwards' interview on "Nightline" was anything but a sincere attempt to be truthful and apologize to those who were blindly supporting him during the period he was cheating on his wife. Liz Edwards is also guilty of perpetuating the mythology of Gomer's squeaky-clean persona if indeed she was aware of the affair within the time frame that Gomer says he fessed up about it. They BOTH are bold faced liars and have this cadre of likewise dishonest legal professionals helping to shield them from the public scrutiny that would otherwise have been lowered if the focus of this scandal were not a hero of liberal democraps the world over.
Now this Newsobserver.com story (which was written by two New York Times reporters: gotta give credit where it's due no matter how unlikely the source) even brings up the allegation that campaign funds were dishonestly directed to Reille Hunter in the form of hush money, written off as expenses for OFFICE FURNITURE to the tune of $14k+. What got a laugh out of me was seeing that one of these lawyers helped to arrange the transaction for approx. $50 less than the entire payment, suggesting to me that the last $50 bucks in question probably came right out of Johnny Boy's wallet.
That appears to have been the extent of Edwards' personal stake in this: $50 dollars, for "Furniture". Which ironically is the term used to refer to live-in prostitutes for the rich in the SF classic SOYLENT GREEN. It's also about the price of a cheap trip to a skanky street hooker for a fifteen minute session of non-copulative intimate contact, ala Hugh Grant. Mr. John Edwards is a total piece of work & a scumbag, and the democraps are in complete denial about what kind of a bullet they dodged when his campaign folded. If the same kind of scrutiny were extended to their chosen candidate as well with names like Tony Rezko and Jeremiah White entering the equation they would have to come to the logical conclusion that Obama is un-electable, just like Johnny Boy is now un-electable. They are both frauds and this suggests that others within the democrap hierarchy are probably frauds as well, which is the real reason the mainstream press were all too eager to have an excuse to dismiss the story.
Let's keep perspective
August 15, 2008 - 19:33 ET by phronemosAlthough I imagine that no one is truly surprised at the ambulance chaser and his wife's behaviors, I suggest we all stop and consider that it's only 99 percent of personal injury/tort lawyers that unfairly paint them all as toilet-licking maggots.
It's great that the MSM can no longer spike these stories when it concerns their soul mates.