Media bias and John Edwards' (alleged) mistress

Oh good grief, did your knee jerk so hard that your laptop fell off your lap before you finished reading? I say in this post that the media has good reason not to publish this Edwards allegation. The national media only "sat" on the Craig story because it didn't know about it. The arrest was kept very hush-hush.

Let's see... economy's going to hell, climate is changing, war with Iran is likely, big election's coming up, and Rod's chasing "alleged" mistresses.

Seems about right.

Bob,

The relevance of something like this -- admittedly tangential -- is it helps give the lie to the delusion that many are suffering now that the Democrats as constituted presently hold any better hope than the Republicans as constituted presently of dealing effectively with any of the problems you note.

If it did nothing else constructive, a story like this -- if true -- would at least go some distance toward puncturing the grandiosity of many Democrats now, puffed up as they are to blimpish proportions on the hot air they've been able to inhale out of power for the past few years.

I write this as someone who is *not* a Republican.

Nick the Greek,

...most people would take one look at the source and the first word that would come to their mind would be "Batboy".

And they would be wrong. 'Batboy' being the creation of the defunct Weekly World News, another supermarket tabloid, and owned previously by the same company that owns the Enquirer.

Republicans? Democrats? Time? Newsweek? National Enquirer? Weekly World News?

Who can keep them all straight?

If true, this would certainly put the kabosh on Edwards's chance of being VP. And it would continue the American tradition (common to both Republicans and Democrats) of politicians cheating on their cancer-stricken wives.

"the Bush administration lied to the American people, disregarded the constitution, used signing statements, tortured lots of innocent people,"

Yes, we've never heard those allegations before in the media. In fact, that's why you don't know about them. That's why there haven't been congressional hearings about any of it.

Like Rod says, honestly.

REP:
Do you still wonder why we do not believe you, Rod? This is beneath you.

Who's "we," love? While I would under normal circumstances appreciate the concern of a reader that I had betrayed my standards and character, somehow it seems -- what's the word? -- phony coming from you. Nevertheless, you may be right, and pointing to this story and explaining why the mainstream media (of which I am a card-carrying member) is probably ignoring it is, in fact, an act of moral self-betrayal and ignominy. I would say, REP, that you must take care not to be corrupted by my bad example. Please don't lower yourself to stop by this blog and comment, I beseech you. To dignify my disgrace by so doing, after this, really is beneath you.

Would it make y'all feel more confident if they ran with the headline, "Moonbat Boy and the Love-child from Second America"?

I would not publish it out of respect for his wife. He is not currently running for office, but he had better beware in the future because it will be surely be brought up at some point.

This is exactly the kind of story that is NOT news. Let's talk about what kinds of policies are best for the country, not who's meeting who in a hotel. "Love child"? Give me a break! What is this? The 1930s?

If it is not true, Edwards, the ambulance chaser, sure has a good libel suit. And since he would represent himself, he could add a few more million to his holdings. Or he could look like a golden boy, by donating it all to cancer research.

Sadly, the story is true, and Edwards' true colors have been revealed.

Honest curiosity here: is it true, generally speaking, that MSM outlets are reluctant to reprint National Enquirer stories less out of libel concerns, but because the Enquirer paid sources for the story?

This is shameful. No not John Edwards' supposed actions.

For this to be a topic of discussion on a supposedly religious website is disgusting beyond belief. Let's all get those stones ready, because someone is bound to come along soon and believe that they have the right to pitch out the first one.

Pharisees! Haters! STOP IT!

God sees everything we do. He told us not to judge. Romans 2:1 says that if you judge another man for any thing, you are guilty of the same thing yourself.

If you give mercy, you'll receive it. If you withhold it, so will God. Satan is the ruler of this world*, and you/we/I are playing right along with his agenda. Congratulations to us!

*John 12, 14, 16. Jesus' temptation i n Matthew all give reference to Satan being in charge of this planet's politics and ways until Jesus comes back. Come soon, Lord!

Yes I'm a fanatic. Thank you for asking!

ds0490: .... Bush's affair with Rice

Condi Rice had an affair with Bush? WITH BUSH???????

Gasp! Another fantasy cruelly deflated.

No -- I wasn't fantasizing about Condi and me.

I was fantasizing about Condi and Ann Coulter.

What is most interesting to me are the sites/outlets that are picking up on this piece. To date, not one 'legitimate' news organization has run with this. Rather, those with a scandalous or titillating bent are. Why would that be?

So far the evidence the Enquirer has given only supports a strong suspicion of an adultery allegation. Actual sexual relations aren't proven, so it's a hearsay story. For journalism proper, the claim of the woman being a mistress, i.e. there being a definite relationship and multiple rendezvous having taken place, is inadequately supported. The claim of her child being fathered by Edwards is entirely unsupported.

It should be rather easy for the Enquirer team to quickly assemble evidence for their claims. There are relatives and friends, security guards and hotel desk employees, cleanup maids, confidants and aides and personal enemies to ask. There are patterns of traveling to the same places at the same times to look for, private or clandestine DNA tests that could be done to figure out parentage.

Rod, Do you need to really pass this story on? I swore I would stop posting on your blog, but I can't help myself. How would you like it if someone conjured this up about you? Glad I am not his wife or children. I hope that when you, your wife, or your children do something wrong (because believe me one of you will) that you are afforded the luxury of privacy and/or a trial before people convict you. This is essentially gossip at this point & completely UN-CHRISTIAN.......

Come On People!! Everybody knows in any MSM, it's the scandals thgat make the headlines. This is where the old saying comes from " If it bleeds it leads"

Item: Check the "Filed under" tags. Please note that "casting stones" is the first one.

Item: This. Is. Not. An. Article. By. A. Reporter. Look up "blog", and I do believe you will see the word "opinion" used at least once.

Item: Those who will be "influenced" by this blog entry into believing that the "story" about Edwards is true, have already exercised their prejudice glands. I have neither tolerance nor sympathy with such people.

Rod: Keep on keepin' on, brother. Oh, and for future reference, it will take a few more decades before "honest" and "supermarket tabloid articles" can be taken as anything other than oxymoronic. That their "stories" actually turn out to be true more than 0% of the time is not a valid criterion on which to base any level of trust in them.

"Well, look, if you think I'm the one passing this story on, you're dreaming. It's on Drudge, which is where I found out about it. I'm not interested in whether or not John Edwards is cheating on his cancer-stricken wife. The media bias question is what interests me. I don't happen to agree with Jack Shafer that the MSM is not reporting on the Enquirer's findings because they have a double standard -- and I said so. But this idea that nobody would know about John Edwards' alleged extramarital derring-do if not for the Crunchy Con blog is awfully obtuse, and more than a little prissy."

God, what a fracking hypocrite you are. You justify your spreading of gossip by saying "well, everyone else is doing it."

Go ahead, ban me from your board. But think on this. If John Edwards is innocent, you have contributed to tarring his character...and have borne false witness.

"Did the Enquirer really catch John Edwards cheating on his wife? If I had to bet money on it, I'd say yes."

When you get to heaven and are shown by God that this is a lie, what would you say to Edwards and his wife as you enter the pearly gates?

Oh, I forgot...it's others who sin. You just report on sinning.

Are some more entitled to a formal presumption of innocence than others? [Expat Tom]

Technically, no, but you have to forgive the presumption of guilt in the media, anyway, where the trail of evidence is so open and obvious a 12-year-old could prosecute. Karadzic waged a war of genocide in front of TV cameras, so while you're correct in pointing out that we should put "alleged" in front of the charges, you'll have to forgive our schadenfreude. [Kevin]
=====
Kevin,

Thanks for your response, to my comment. However, I do not think one should forgive "our schadenfreude."

I agree with Rod that the question of interest is not did Edwards cheat (or Karadzic commit the alleged warcrimes), but rather is the media biased in its reporting. Personally, I think it is.

Journalists are careful to refer to allegations against Edwards as "alleged" (probably for legal reasons), but not so with Karadzic.

In Karadzic's case the dropping of "alleged" sets a bad precedent.

We have some reason to believe that war crimes were committed, and some suspicions that Karadzic is responsible, but there are other explanations. For example, Lord Owen reported that while he was in Bosnia (working for the UN), that Bosnian Muslims staged events that were then uncritically passed on by journalist to the world. In one case Lord Owen claims that Bosnian Muslims shelled Serb positions from a hospital immediately prior to a scheduled press conference at the hospital. When the Serbs returned fire the story that went out was Serbs shell hospital. If Lord Owen is telling the truth, then we have reason to withhold judgment and let the legal process, not mobs, establish the facts and dispense justice.

The Karadzic case is far more significant than is Edwards alleged indiscretion. All the more reason for journalists to take care when reporting it. However, I doubt that will happen. Such restraint won't gather a massive audience. It's easier to let standards slip for the sake of a good headline.

It seems to me that all mediums are inherently biased, and operate along the lines of Dostoevsky's character Peter Stepanovich Verkhovensky. As Dostoevsky describes him, "'First he gets his own picture of a man, then that's the man he sees.'" This is a bias produced more by the slothful enforcement of professional standards, than by political orientation.

Tom

I live in Washington, D.C., Jim. Personally, I can't believe Novak has gotten off with just a small fine. At least there should be intense pressure on the man to STOP DRIVING. He's clearly too old.

BTW, would there be more outrage if he hadn't hit an 86-yr-old homeless man (a homeless man who once had a play of his performed on Broadway)?

Art Deco: There is no doubt left.

When we posted this story in Dec. 2007 (and we certainly weren’t the only blog to do so) the article was hit about 6,000 times, leading me to believe that it was absolutely newsworthy with or without Edward’s admission. After all - all the same elements are there. Not much has changed in a half a year.

The fly in the ointment here though is that is shows pretty plainly how bent the media is. Oh yeah, I know, they’ll cover liberal goofs when they absolutely have to. The cable news networks are forcing them to cover all sorts of things they didn’t want to cover before....

However the newspapers - like the NY Times will splash an unproven story about an alleged McCain affair all over the front page, while the Edwards story (which has had sources, photos and the woman’s own allegations) was flatly ignored.

Now the liberal press proports “he’s not running for anything, why does it matter?”

Well, the story happened when he was running for something - he then was a viable VP candidate and lastly, yes, he is STILL in active in the political process, stumping for Obama (until now anyway).

To say it’s not a legitimate, serious story is pure nonsense - and since I seriously doubt Edwards is coming clean about the child being his, it will continue to be a story.

The aggravating thing to me is the simple fact that if one of our soliders messes up on the battlefield, fighting for their lives... the media will run with that story for years and years.

Type GITMO into a Google search and count the major media links appear by the hundreds and probably thousands.

Let one of their own mess up, lie about it, cover it up.... and it’s page 18 news at the very most.

Danny Vice
http://www.theweeklyvice.com