The New York Times Arrogant Self-Serving Introspection

The New York Times evaluates the mainstream media's reluctance to pursue inconvenient news.

A number of news organizations with resources far greater than The Enquirer’s, like The New York Times, say they looked into the Edwards matter and found nothing solid enough to report, while others did not look at all.

Really! The Times looked into this and found nothing? Where did you look? Were you gazing into your own navel?

[M]any news organizations — including The New York Times — weighed in only after ABC News announced on Friday that it had an interview with Mr. Edwards, in which he admitted the affair but denied paternity.

“These kinds of allegations fly around about just about every candidate,” said Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, which had not written about the affair until Friday. “We checked them out and we asked questions, and at no time did we have any facts to report.”

Somehow, these so-called reporters managed not to find what they really didn't want to find. As Phil Bronstein, former editor of the San Francisco Chronicle phrased it, the MSM pursued this story as though they “picking at it with their noses held, as if looking for something valuable in a moldy dumpster.”

He's giving them too much credit. If there was something of value in that dumpster, they consciously and intentionally ignored it. If it were lying on the street in front of they, they would have stepped over it, pretending not to notice.

CNN, which first mentioned the affair on Friday, “had been working the story since it first broke in The Enquirer late last year,” said Sam Feist, the political director. “We sent people to Chapel Hill, we sent people to California.”

But, he said, “Edwards denied it, the woman denied it,” and “you have to have some sort of evidence before you put something on the air.”

Gee! Who would have thought that Edwards and Hunter might lie? Is it really that easy to fool CNN?

Paul Friedman, senior vice president of CBS News, said the network did not actively pursue the story when it broke last fall. Asked if that was because it had first appeared in The National Enquirer, he said, “Exactly.”

Aside from the self-inflicted myopic elitism of that statement, it still does not address the fact that the Enquirer, with its limited resources scooped the MSM on a story that really was of significant consequence. What if Edwards had won the nomination and this story broke in October? What it he had been elected? Wouldn't this leave the most powerful man in the world vulnerable to blackmail?

The New York Times looked into the Enquirer reports last fall, though none too aggressively, editors said.

Bill Keller, the executive editor, said in an e-mail message that Mr. Edwards’s dark-horse status and the “added hold-your-nose quality about The Enquirer” contributed to the lack of interest by The Times and the mainstream media generally.

Considering the low threshold that the New York Times held itself to before insinuating that John McCain had an affair with a lady lobbyist, perhaps it is the Times that is the more deserving of nose holding.

The Media Pornographication Of Shasta Groene's Horror

I suppose that this is one of those issues that require a degree in journalism to understand. Maybe it requires a graduate degree and many years of experience. Certainly nobody without specialized training would place the sensibilities of a middle-aged woman above those of a frail, traumatized child. If you have been formally trained in journalistic ethics, then you might understand this. Although I doubt that the rest of us would have the slightest chance of grasping the nuance of contributing to the suffering of a little girl while protecting a mature political hack.

A little over 3 years ago, Joseph Duncan attacked a family in their home in North Idaho. He brutally murdered three people and kidnapped two young children. The crime was so gruesome and sensational that I learned of it on the news while working in El Salvador.

Duncan tortured and molested the kidnapped children, and ultimately murdered the boy, Dylan Groene. The girl, Shasta Groene, was rescued and is now scheduled to testify at Duncan’s penalty trial, where he stands to receive the death penalty.

The judge presiding over the case decided that justice could just as easily be served if the media were not permitted to record and doubtless sensationalize Shasta Groene’s recollections. Certainly, after all she has gone through, she does not need to have her schoolmates reading about her experiences and she does not need to have her story immortalized for public viewing on mainstream media websites. A just world would consider it a moral obligation to spare the child any more emotional distress. Sadly, the mainstream news media do not seem to be of this just and moral world.

The mainstream media have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the judge’s ruling. The media believe that Shasta’s torment should be splashed on the front pages and should lead off the evening news for all to read and see. I’m sure that all of you are looking forward to the pornographic details of Joseph Duncan’s molestation of little Shasta.

It’s not as though the mainstream news media are incapable of compassion. In fact, the primary reason given for why you probably have not read a juicy story about a prominent Democratic politician is out of consideration for his middle aged wife.

Several months ago, the National Enquirer super market tabloid reported that John Edwards, the former U.S. senator from North Carolina, who was twice a candidate for president and the 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president, had fathered a child with a former videographer for his recent presidential campaign. The mainstream media did their best to ignore the story, in spite of the fact that early in the primary season, he was polling even with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He really was a serious contender at the time. Nevertheless, the mainstream media chose to ignore the story. And so it languished, until now.

The National Enquirer once again did what the mainstream media once did: It pursued and investigated the story. And a couple of weeks ago, the Enquirer, acting on a tip, caught Edwards entering a hotel room occupied by the woman who bore the child and kept watch until he left the room in the early morning hours.

Once again, the mainstream media have refused to report the story, even though Edwards was at the time under consideration for a vice presidential nomination and, failing that, was considered likely to gain appointment to a Barack Obama cabinet, should the horror of an Obama presidency come to pass, probably as Attorney General.

One might think that the media that disseminated the New Times’ baseless innuendo about a supposed affair between John McCain and a lady lobbyist would be equally as eager to report on John Edwards’ peccadillo. But you’d be wrong. But lest you think that ideology and party affiliation influenced the decision, pay attention to what longtime mainstream journalist and former New Republic writer Mickey Kaus discovered during his inquiries into the affair.

He learned that the reason that NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and all major newspapers are ignoring this story is their sympathy for John Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth.

Elizabeth Edwards is dying of cancer. And it’s very thoughtful of the media to take that into consideration, even though she and her husband exploited her illness for political gain when it suited them.

But if the media will muzzle itself in consideration of a sick, middle-aged woman, then why can’t it exercise similar restraint when the psyche of a little girl is in the balance?

Little Johnny Edwards Affair Gets Juicier

There's a strong possibility that Little Johnny will have to explain himself under oath regarding his wet wick incident with his mistress.

It couldn't be happening to anyone more deserving.

Little Johnny Caught With A Wet Wick

Well, the John Edwards affair is pretty much confirmed now, even if the MSM does its level best to ignore the story.

If only they had paid attention way back when.

Can The MSM Simply Ignore The Edwards Affair Story Into Oblivion?

I don't think so. Pretty soon, the National Enquirer is going to have to show their cards.

I choke when I say this, but the Enquirer's credibility is on the line. After all, they've stopped trying to sell papers with blazing headlines about women who were impregnated by aliens.

If they can't back up their gossip, then they're back in the same market as the Weekly World News.

On the other hand, this does strike me as credible.

The John Edwards' Affair

Mickey Kaus has noted how hard the mainstream media is working to ignore John Edwards' affair with a campaign staffer.

Of course, he does have his work cut out for him if he's going to make up ground on that hero of the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton.

After reading this, I can manage a measure of sympathy for the man.

Senator Edwards’ lows seem to coincide with his wife’s silly, Drudge-worthy sound bites. Here’s a sampling of Mrs. Edwards sending her husband’s campaign into oblivion (dates listed are when comments were first reported):

- October 6, 2006: “[Hillary Clinton] and I are from the same generation. We both went to law school and married other lawyers, but after that, we made other choices. I think my choices have made me happier. I think I'm more joyful than she is.”

- April 11, 2007: Calls North Carolina neighbor “slummy” and “rabid, rabid Republican.”

- July 17, 2007: “[S]ometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues. I’m sympathetic – [Hillary Clinton] wants to be commander in chief. But she's just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is. She’s just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is.”

- August 6, 2007 : “We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars.”

- October 4, 2007: “My classmates went to Vietnam, [Rush Limbaugh] did not. He was 4F. He had a medical disability, the same medical disability that probably should have stopped him from spending a lifetime in a radio announcer’s chair; but it is true, isn’t it? If he has an inoperable position that allows him not to serve, presumably it should not allow him to sit for long periods of time the way he does. I think this is a serious enough offense for the people who fund him, who buy ads and allow him to be on the air…”

On the other hand, maybe he's just part of that small, scummy subset of the population who dump their spouse after a cancer diagnosis.

Update: Just a reminder that the National Enquirer was recently purchased my Ron Burkle, a very wealthy friend of the Clintons.

At the time I wondered if he wasn't watching Hillary's backside. The Enquirer beat the "real news media" to a lot of scandal stories involving the Clintons back in the 1990's and wouldn't it be convenient if a friend of the family was making sure that those stories didn't appear at inopportune moments during Hillary's campaign. I didn't consider at the time that Burkle/Clinton might use the tabloids to attack Hillary's rivals. Look out Obama!

Update: I'm not the only one who smells the Clinton smear machine.

Update 2: Caught!

Edwards Taking a Page Out Of Bill Clinton's Book?

John Edwards having an affair with a staffer? Hey, it worked for Slick Willie in 1992.

On the other hand, I believe that the National Enquirer is owned by a devoted Clintonista, Ron Berkle if I recall.

A source close to the woman, whose name is being withheld by The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, says that she confessed to having an affair in phone calls and emails, saying that her work with Edwards soon exploded into romance. The shocking allegation — if proven true — could devastate the Democratic hopeful's campaign, especially because John's devoted wife Elizabeth is locked in a desperate battle with breast cancer.

"The affair started about 18 months ago," a friend says the woman confessed to her. "When they met at a bar, sparks flew immediately.

"She never expected it would turn sexual since John is married and is running for President. But it soon did — and she fell for him."

In one bombshell e-mail message provided to The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, the woman confesses to a friend she's "in love with John," but it's "difficult because he is married and has kids."

In another e-mail, she writes: "Last night and this a.m., he actually has amazed me. He is a great man. My heart is loud and my head is silenced."

Disclosed her friend: "She initially confided in a few of her closest pals that she was sleeping with 'a married man named John.'

"It became clear the married man was John Edwards. They got together whenever they could, mostly at hotels where Edwards and his campaign staff stayed."

The woman later spelled it out in a phone call to her pal and talked openly about having an affair with Edwards.

I guess it's time for the Breck Girl to resort to desperate measures.