LA Times Lifts Gag Order Slowly Lifting

* LA Times’ Reports Denial Canard
* Writer Gives Readers a “Backdoor” to More Information?

GAG ORDER SLOWLY LIFTING

The embargo on John Edwards Scandal news at the LA Times Blogs is slowly being lifted. The embargo on supplying accurate information, however, may not be.

Don Fredrick’s “Might a John Edwards Dem convention role be in jeopardy?” on the LA Times’ website is Exhibit A.

UPDATES throughout the day, at end of story.
UPDATE #1: 11:12 EDT August 8, 2008 -Edwards to be “Invisible” at Convention
UPDATE #2 12:42 EDT -Leno Strikes Again, Some on the Left Get it

LA Times’ readers, who might wonder how a prime VP candidate of only a few weeks ago might now be persona non grata in Denver, are brought up to speed by the story.

ALSO at DBKP: Click on banner to access over 70 DBKP stories and videos on the John Edwards scandal.

The story reports, “Edwards has continued to deny the affair allegations”. However, Edwards has not denied the story since November 29, when the allegations were very general.

Three weeks later, the National Enquirer published the photos of a pregnant Rielle Hunter and named her as Edwards’ mistress. Since that time, Edwards has issued no denials. Prior to July 23, Edwards was never asked about the allegations by reporters.

Edwards statements on the matter since that time have ranged from, “tabloid trash,” to “tabloids full of lies,” to “sorry, I can’t talk now”.

It’s not known if Fredricks, whose on-line bio states “served as an editor helping guide coverage of every presidential election since 1984,” was allowed to report that, however. The following paragraph did make it into the post:

Chris Lehane, a key Al Gore aide during the 2000 presidential campaign, added that “an appearance at the convention [by Edwards] would only highlight the unresolved story.”

Unresolved, for those who know about it, that is.

LA Times’ Blogs Editor, Tony Pearce, explained in an interview a few weeks ago that “the Metro Desk is on [the story.]” Thus far, the Times’ Metro Desk appears to have not uncovered anything, as nothing has been reported in the print edition of the paper to date.

The article is informative on how the LA Times will explain its previous participation in the media blackout on Edwards’ scandal news.

“For the most part, mainstream media outlets have not pursued the matter, in part because Edwards no longer is a presidential candidate nor does he hold a public office.”

INFORMATION BACKDOOR

Which may leave readers wondering, “What has changed about Edwards’ status to now allow discussion of the scandal on August 8?”

The LA Times’ story references Alan Mutter’s Reflections of a Newsosaur blog, “Where’s the Edwards love-child story?”, which directly contradicts the LAT’s non-coverage thesis above–though the LAT’s article, obviously, doesn’t quote the contradictory material. Mutter observes,

“Even though his presidential campaign is over, John Edwards has sought to be a major public figure for a decade. As such, he long since has forfeited any claim to privacy for his family or himself.”

Might this be an instance of guerrilla journalism? By directing LAT readers to Mutter, who is freer to speak on the subject, a backdoor to information on the scandal that the LAT doesn’t feel comfortable discussing is opened. More Mutter:

The rest of the mainstream media need to start writing and talking about the story, too. If not, their silence will be viewed as complicity in a suspected cover-up and their already fragile credibility will slip still further.

Has Don Fredrick learned the Rule of Information in the Internet age?

When one door shuts, another opens.

EDWARDS SCANDAL THREATENS OBAMA?

“John Edwards love child rumours threaten the Barack Obama presidential campaign” is the headline of a story in yesterday’s The Daily Mail (U.K.).

“Barack Obama’s supporters yesterday tried to distance him from a potentially damaging sex scandal.”

Annette Witheridge, the Daily Mail’s reporter on the story, has a firm grip on how the U.S. Mainstream Media operates.

Rumours that Mr Edwards, whose wife Elizabeth is battling breast cancer, fathered the child were ignored by the mainstream media until yesterday when the National Enquirer printed a grainy photograph allegedly showing Mr Edwards cradling the baby in a Los Angeles hotel room last month.

Witheridge avoids the MSM urban legend of Edwards’ denying an affair with Rielle Hunter and fathering her daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter.

Until the photograph emerged Mr Edwards, who was John Kerry’s running mate in the 2004 presidential election, had managed to avoid questions about the affair.

DID RIELLE HUNTER TIP THE ENQUIRER?

The Daily Mail’s article also observes, “Last night it was not clear how the Enquirer had obtained a photo that appeared to have been taken inside the room when the curtains were closed.”

The Enquirer’s latest edition reports a “Blow Up with Mistress” and recounts a telephone conversation in which Edwards, “hurled angry accusations at Rielle for at least 10 minutes, demanding that she keep her mouth shut and not trust anyone, according to the source.”

Once again, the question becomes, “Was John Edwards’s meeting at the Beverly Hilton with his mistress and daughter tipped to the National Enquirer by Rielle Hunter?”

Which might answer questions of why the pictures, which are described as “grainy” and “blurred” by some news outlets, were not clearer. Hard to take an unnoticed, clear picture of the man holding your baby, when they’re both only a few feet away.

UPDATE #1:
EDWARDS TO BE ‘INVISIBLE’?

New York Post has two reports on the John Edwards scandal, though both are posted in the “Gossip” section of the paper’s website. [DEMS MIGHT MUZZLE EDWARDS]

The item may outline both the convention and media strategy for dealing with the scandal. (Emphasis added.)

DNC spokesperson Natalie Wyeth told Page Six: “It’s tradition that all candidates for the nomination are invited to attend, and this year will be no different.”

But a veteran party operative told us, “I don’t think anyone wants to go near him unless he answers all the questions.” Another Democrat said, “He will probably go, but do no interviews and try to be invisible.”

The Post’s post begins with, “JOHN Edwards has gone, in a few months, from being one of the Democrats’ strongest presidential candidates to a party pariah who won’t be allowed to speak at the national convention later this month.”

The second story, “NOVEL TALE OF POL’S ‘MISTRESS’” once again confuses readers over the matter of Edwards denial of the affair.

Edwards and Hunter flatly denied the Enquirer’s report. “It is completely untrue, ridiculous,” Edwards said. “I’ve been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years.” His wife, Elizabeth, is battling cancer.

Both Edwards and Hunter denied the October Enquirer report. Hunter’s denial came nine weeks before the tabloid named her as the ‘other woman’ [Why Did Rielle Hunter Denounce the National Enquirer NINE WEEKS Before the Paper Would Name Her as the “Other Woman?].

Edwards, however, has not denied the affair since Rielle Hunter was named by the Enquirer as his mistress.

UPDATE #2 12:44 EDT

From a reader, we learn that one of Jay Leno’s offerings last night (discussing Hillary’s VP chances)

“Yeah, that’s the big talk. They say Barack Obama could decide to go with another woman. See, that’s what killed John Edwards’ chances of being vice president. He decided to go with another woman.”

As Leno continues to crack jokes about Edwards–and the laughter it elicits–we can assume Leno’s LA audience gets their news from somewhere other than the LA Times print editions.

Which leads Alexander Cockburn [The Edwards scandal in full], to the following conclusion:

An American standing in the checkout line at a supermarket is better informed on a hot issue of the day than the nation’s elite who send their maids to buy food and get their news from the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Indicating that some on the Left clearly see the whole John Edwards scandal, and the accompanying media blackout, clearly.

Although Cockburn has a few of the minor details wrong–the Enquirer kicked off it’s December portion of the scandal on December 18–he’s spot-on the big picture. Cockburn’s observation that the scandal entered the public realm nearly a year ago also contained a disturbing revelation.

So far as the precise historical record goes, former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, 55, began his slide into public scandal back on Aug. 25, 2007, when the New York Post’s Page 6 gossip column ran a blind item asking: “Which political candidate enjoys visiting New York because he has a girlfriend who lives downtown? The pol tells her he’ll marry her when his current wife is out of the picture.”

At the time, the millionaire lawyer Edwards was still in contention for the Democratic nomination despite well-founded gibes that his populist rhetoric sounded odd when spouted from a man who had $400 haircuts and a 28,000-square-foot house in his home state of North Carolina. The Post’s item kicked off a round of speculation on the Web, homing in on the chilling phrase “out of the picture” — taken by some to refer to Edward’s wife Elizabeth, very ill with breast cancer.

Finally, Cockburn recalls another MSM news blackout from the past, as well as its historical implications.

There is a parallel. In January 1992, Rupert Murdoch’s Star, the Enquirer’s rival, ran Gennifer Flowers’s account of her long affair with Bill Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas. If the Times or the Post had taken the Star seriously, Bill Clinton would not have been president. We would never have had Monica Lewinsky and impeachment. How dull the late Nineties would have been!

In 1992, people had far less alternatives for obtaining news; that is not the case 16 years later.

The New York Time’s stock price reflects that changed informational reality.

by Mondoreb
image: Daily Mail; National Enquirer