The mainstream media's reaction to the National Enquirer's reports on John Edwards' "love child" scandal has been reminiscent of the Soviet press. Edwards' name has simply been completely whitewashed out of the news. Say,
why isn't anyone talking about John Edwards for vice president anymore?
No, seriously – hey! Why are we going to a commercial break?
I suspect that if I tried to look up coverage of the Democratic
primaries in Nexis news archives, Edwards' name will have disappeared
from the debates. By next week, Edwards won't have been John Kerry's
running mate in 2004.
Do you know what this means? At this precise moment in time, I could
call Edwards a name that would send me to rehab, and the media wouldn't
be able to report it!
A Washington Post reporter defended the total blackout on the
National Enquirer's John Edwards' love child story, telling the Times
of London: "Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage." This was the perfect guy to
talk to because if there's one thing they're careful about in London,
it's tabloid excess.
Isn't there some level of coverage between "wall-to-wall" and
"double-secret probation, delta-force level total news blackout" when
it comes to a sex scandal involving a current Democrat vice presidential and cabinet prospect?
Hey, what sort of "elected official" was Ted Haggard again? He was
the Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard
of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year. Then he suddenly
became the pope of the Protestants. And yet, despite the fact that
Haggard was not an "elected official," the Post gave that story
wall-to-wall coverage. And what sort of "elected officials" were Mel
Gibson, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett?
The MSM justify banner coverage of the smallest malfeasance by any
Christian or conservative, with or without independent verification,
with the lame excuse of "hypocrisy." Hey, why didn't you say so! If all
it takes to get the Edwards story into the establishment press is a
little hypocrisy, boy, have I got a story for you!
Based on information currently saturating the Internet: 1) The
entire schmaltzy Edwards campaign consisted of this self-professed
moralist telling us how much he loved the poor and loved his
cancer-stricken wife; 2) the following was Edwards' response to CBS
News anchor Katie Couric's question about whether voters should care if
a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse:
Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans – including the family
that I grew up with, I mean, it's fundamental to how you judge people
and human character – whether you keep your word, whether you keep what
is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll
stay with them. ... I think the most important qualities in a president
in today's world are trustworthiness – sincerity, honesty, strength of
leadership. And – and certainly that goes to a part of that.
There you have it, boys: Go to town, MSM!
Moreover, the National Enquirer reports that Edwards is paying
Rielle Hunter – the former "Lisa Druck" – $15,000 a month in "hush
money." Shouldn't the IRS be investigating whether Edwards is deducting
those payments as a "business expense"?
Maybe the Washington Post didn't hear about the Enquirer catching
Edwards in a hotel with his mistress and love child since it happened
way out in the sleepy little burg of Los Angeles near the corner of
Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards – you know, the middle of nowhere.
But surely the public can count on the Los Angeles Times to report on a
tabloid scandal occurring under its very nose.
Kausfiles produced this e-mail from a L.A. Times editor to its
bloggers soon after the Enquirer's stakeout of Edwards visiting the
alleged mistress and love child at the Beverly Hilton:
From: "Pierce, Tony"
Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT
Subject: john edwards
There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his
alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer
we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I
am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.
If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask.
Hey, I have a story idea I think the L.A. Times might like: How
about something on the glorious workers' revolution that will restore
the means of production to the people and create a workers' paradise
right here on Earth, free of the shackles of capitalism?
I assume it would be jejune to point out that the MSM would be
taking the wall-to-wall approach, rather than the total blackout
approach, to the love child story if it were a story about Mitt
Romney's love child or, indeed, Larry Craig's love child. They'd bring
Ted Koppel out of retirement to cover that. Katie Couric, Brian
Williams and Charles Gibson would be anchoring the evening news from
Romney's front yard. They might even get Dan Rather to produce some
forged documents for the occasion.
But with a Democrat sex scandal, the L.A. Times is in a nail-biting
competition with the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, NBC and
CBS for the Pulitzer for "Best Suppressed Story."