Enquiring Minds
Byron York speculates on NRO why the mainstream media haven't reported on l'affaire Edwards, echoing some of what I've been saying to friends these past few days:
First, the journalists don't believe that news organizations should just uncritically pass on the reporting of the Enquirer. They have a point; the Enquirer has been quite accurate on some stories and inaccurate on others. One could argue that the tabloid's reporting on this particular story contains a wealth of detail that remains un-denied by Edwards or anyone else. Still, there's nothing wrong with news organizations being skeptical of the source.But the question is not whether the news organizations should simply repeat the Enquirer's reporting. It's whether they are actively pursuing the story, doing their own reporting in an effort to confirm the basic allegations that Edwards had an affair with campaign staffer Rielle Hunter, and then had a baby with her, and is now covering it up. And here it appears -- from this completely unscientific survey -- that there is not a lot of independent reporting going on.
Instead, some big-time journalists seem to believe the Enquirer has nailed the story, and they are waiting for the tabloid to release the full results of its reporting. In the meantime, they are staying away from the story because it appeared in the Enquirer. In other words, they're waiting for the Enquirer to fully report a story that they wouldn't otherwise report... because it's in the Enquirer.
That could have changed by this point. If news organizations had thrown a lot of resources at the story in an attempt to confirm (or disprove) the Enquirer's allegations, it's likely some of them would have come up with something in the two and a half weeks since the Enquirer reported the story on July 22. Instead, there has been nothing.
Yoohoo, LATimes, we're still waiting! Just as they're firing reporters by the gross, they still don't have news on Edwards or a gossip column a la the New York Post's Page Six -- the stuff readers really want. Meanwhile, yesterday, on the front page, "Sikorsky" was misspelled "Sikorksy." Guess they let go one too many copy editors!
Just as they're firing reporters by the gross, they still don't have news on Edwards or a gossip column a la the New York Post's Page Six -- the stuff readers really want.
I'd like to go on the record as saying I'm a newspaper reader, and this isn't what I want. (And, as well, that "Sikorksy" was almost certainly just a simple typo, and there's one in every paper, every day.)
If Edwards were still a viable presidential candidate, that'd be one thing. If he was cruising for gay sex in public toilets while voting against gay rights in the Senate, that'd be another thing. If he had spurned his responsibility and refused to pay this woman a dime, that'd be yet another thing. And if Edwards were a family-values posturer, that would be yet one more thing. But so far this story seems to boil down to:
A public figure made a mistake and is making it right the only way he really can -- with money. Meanwhile, there are several children and a dying woman involved, and if I never read another word about it, in a tab, on a blog or anywhere else, I'd be happy. Surely Byron York can find some other panties to sniff.
Nance at August 8, 2008 10:18 AM
Nance, I couldn't agree more. And frankly Amy, I'm surprised that you are advocating for wasting a single journalistic dollar on this. Americans have been fed a steady diet of trash news and puritanical sexual beliefs which are combined perfectly in this story.
Edward's private life is his private life. Who cares who is sleeping with?
Kara at August 8, 2008 10:29 AM
The instant he proposes that he be put in a position of power and trust, his private life becomes out business.
His behavior shows a tremendous lack of judgment. This affair suggests that he might be prone to blackmail.
And that is something that matters. Whom he sleeps with is of no concern, so long as he isn't susceptible to manipulation as a result of it.
brian at August 8, 2008 10:49 AM
People -- including me -- love reading Page Six. We have an evolutionary predisposition to be interested in others in our "tribe," which, in our "evolutionarily novel" time, backfires on us and makes us interested in celebrities.
Newspapers are in big trouble right now. I run into Mickey Kaus walking down to pick up the Post sometimes. He leaves his house and probably walks almost a mile to get it. Now, maybe he needs a walk. But, I'm guessing he, like me, finds it lots of fun.
The LA Times is just stuffy, and when they have had gossipish columns, they've always censored them. But, this is Hollywood, and at the moment, if you want to read dirt on stars, you'll have to go to PageSix.com. Not smart, LATimes.
And not to worry, in between reading celebrity dirt, I'm reading news from around the globe, from liberal and conservative sources, and in French and English, and parsing data from studies by two Swiss economists that make me feel like I'm giving myself a brain aneurism.
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2008 12:40 PM
The instant he proposes that he be put in a position of power and trust, his private life becomes out business.
His behavior shows a tremendous lack of judgment. This affair suggests that he might be prone to blackmail.
Are you going to apply that same standard to ALL politicians who've had affairs? If so, we'd never read about anything else.
deja pseu at August 8, 2008 1:24 PM
Well, now he's admitting to the affair, but not to the kid. What a prince. Why didn't he just hire George Lucas, rather than some blonde in a bar, if he wanted campaign films?
Kate at August 8, 2008 1:34 PM
Why didn't he just hire George Lucas, rather than some blonde in a bar, if he wanted campaign films?
Lucas does not have primary female features.
The Mad Hungarian at August 8, 2008 1:43 PM
Which is why I don't believe that he didn't have the affair before Hunter started working for him. 40 million film school graduates and Hollywood connections and she's the one he hired?
Kate at August 8, 2008 2:34 PM
New meme (started 10 mins ago at Teacher's): Evermore, 8/8 is Mickey Kaus Day!
The Mickster worked hard for this scalp, and it's every bit as thick, shiny and luxuriant as we'd hoped for.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 8, 2008 2:57 PM
> Guess they let go one too
> many copy editors!
They just let twelve hundred people go from the editorial department! That's 12 one hundreds! I can't imagine the office would be bigger than 40, including interns.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 8, 2008 2:59 PM
> Surely Byron York can find
> some other panties to sniff.
That was funny. I disagree with your larger point, but props....
> surprised that you are advocating
> for wasting a single journalistic
> dollar
WTF? Do you think responsible citizenship means worrying about news department finances?
> Who cares who is sleeping with?
The people who resent his deployment of pathos and sanctimony as entitlements to national office, elected or appointed. Fuck 'im.
> Not smart, LATimes.
Word. Gossip is underrated. Listen, if you don't care, then you don't care, and you don't have to listen... But people have the right to bring whatever judgment suits them when considering public servants. The LA Times can't figure this out... They want to instruct people about what's important. But they can't afford to print a slender book review section anymore.
This is a guy, Edwards, who made a gazillion dollars caressing the emotions and perceptions of juries in consumer lawsuits. His life has always been about the intersection of responsibility and personal conduct.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at August 8, 2008 3:11 PM
"Edward's private life is his private life. Who cares who is sleeping with?"
Hmm. I'll quote John Edwards. When Katie Couric's asked if voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse, he said:
"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."
Why would you say something else?
If you suggest that it's OK for your candidate to be a liar, just what the hell are you voting for? His (her) ability to lie?
I am somehow constantly amazed at the number of people eager to excuse stupidity, lying and vice.
Radwaste at August 8, 2008 3:32 PM
Why don't these politicians ever realize it's better to come right out and say, "Yes, I did it!"? It's the lying that's the worst part, not who they're sleeping with.
Yet, it's also hard to overlook his lying to his cancer-stricken wife. I just read that during this period, when he was having the affair, they renewed their wedding vows, and his wife, who's battling terminal illness, actually lost weight so she would look pretty and fit into her original wedding gown.
He's got to be such a major liar and narcissist to go through with that kind of charade. So, it would be really hard to ever trust his judgement in other matters.
lovelysoul at August 8, 2008 8:34 PM
Leave a comment