Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!”
–Famous denial, Luke 22:60

Media Circulates False Story that Edwards Denied Love Child Allegations in December

National Enquirer’s December Allegations NEVER Denied

The Media’s “Don’t Ask Edwards, He Won’t Tell” Policy

No Edwards’ Denials After November 29: A MSM Urban Legend

UPDATE to follow at end of story.
UPDATE #1: 16:19 EDT August 7 2008
UPDATE #2: 16:53 EDT

Perhaps history’s three most famous denials were issued by the apostle Peter on the night that Jesus was arrested. Thus, Peter issued three more denials in one night than John Edwards has made after November 29, 2007; i.e., none.

One recurring theme turning up for Mainstream Media apologists in the last several days goes something on the order of, “Edwards denied this story in December”. Variations range from yesterday’s Raleigh Telegram’s insistent “Edwards continuously denied the accusations,” [Enquirer Publishes Blurry 'Photo' Of John Edwards] to Deceiver’s July 28 “The John Edwards Non-Scandal Keeps Getting Not-Weirder“:

Then, last December, Edwards denied having an affair and an illegitimate child with Hunter after the National Enquirer spotted her, visibly pregnant, living in North Carolina.

ALSO at DBKP: Click on banner to access over 60 DBKP stories and videos on the John Edwards scandal.

One British newspaper repeated the “Edwards’ December Denial” recently. Yesterday, at NRO, Byron York cited–inadvertently, no doubt–the EDD meme. From “John Edwards: The Picture of a Scandal” (emphasis added):

Last December, when the Enquirer first named Hunter, Edwards did deny it. A couple of months earlier, when the Enquirer published a thinly-sourced story claiming that Edwards was “caught in a shocking mistress scandal that could wreck his campaign,” Edwards quite emphatically denied it. “The story is false,” he said then. “It’s completely untrue, ridiculous. Anyone who knows me knows that I have been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years.”

As our own LBG put it, in “John Edwards Scandal: Where in the World is John Edwards?“:

The MSM turned a blind eye to the alleged Edwards’ affair so it was a surprise when the story resurfaced in November in the Daily News. On November 29, the Daily News’ Rush and Molloy published “Tabloid’s affair rumor dispelled, says John Edwards”. The article wrote that “John Edwards believes he’s stared down the National Enquirer”.

The article mentioned the Enquirer’s promise to follow-up the initial Edwards affair story on October 10. The Daily News cited an Enquirer insider who admitted “there’s a lot of smoke, but no smoking gun”. The Daily News also quoted Edwards who claimed the story “disappeared because it’s made up”.

In December, a two-line item was tagged onto the end of one report that “an unnamed reporter in South Carolina” asked Edwards about it and he responded with the deflection, “Tabloid gossip” and “trashy lies”. DBKP believes this occurred during Edwards’ Christmas campaign break, when he was back in North Carolina.

Is this hair-splitting? Maybe, but Edwards gave no denial even in that incident.

This point is important: it allows those in the major media to excuse their complete failure to fulfill their adversarial duties, for nearly eight months. Once the Enquirer allegations went from the general (October 10 Enquirer story) to the specific (December 18), the press didn’t ask, Edwards didn’t tell–at least until July 23.

The Democrats could have saved a pound of August headaches with just an ounce of December MSM investigative legwork.

As we stated earlier today in “John Edwards Scandal: Dems Worry, Call on Edwards To Come Forward“:

It may be noted that Democrats could have avoided all of this–if just one major news organization would have investigated the easily-checked facts of the National Enquirer’s December edition of the scandal. [Curious Circumstances Excite No Curiosity in the Mainstream Media and The Edwards Scandal, The Press, The Enquirer and the Blogosphere]

Back in December, in the above stories DBKP wondered why not one reporter had asked Edwards, “Do you deny you’ve been in telephone contact with Rielle Hunter since she found out she was pregnant?” Hunter, at that time, was living within five miles of the Edwards campaign HQ in Chapel Hill, NC, in the house of an Edwards’ backer, driving a BMW registered to former Edwards Director of Finance, Andrew Young–all checkable facts.

But not one reporter thought it curious enough to investigate then.

In doing the research for this article, we found several “December denials” sprinkled throughout the sparse MSM coverage of the last few days. We can find no such proof that Edwards was even asked about Rielle Hunter–or her impending bundle of joy– in December.

We waited, in vain in December for that one brave MSM reporter to ask Edwards about the National Enquirer’s allegations. Astonished that none did not, we wrote about it in December several times.

The waiting continued: Edwards was in the race through January, when he dropped out of the race. Edwards remained in the news as a possible candidate for both VP and a cabinet position, as well as his promotional Half in Ten poverty tour.

Our waiting was over July 23, when Edwards gave his now-infamous video “non-denial”.
[Edwards Love Child: Worst Denial Video Ever]

Edwards’ denials came in October, with the last one on November 29, when he felt he had covered his tracks and that the Enquirer was bluffing about the affair.

The “continuous denials” and “December denials” that are being bandied about in the press as reasons they didn’t investigate Edwards eight months ago?

They have all the makings of a Mainstream Media urban legend: it sounds good, but simply aren’t true.

It’s a matter of record–for any reporter willing to investigate.

THE BUZZ

Speaking of denial…

A few days ago, Mickey Kaus, Slate, wrote a handy “Why write about the Edwards scandal?

Here’s a short clip-’n'-save response to those (including many friends) who argue the Edwards scandal shouldn’t be pursued–or at least pursued too vigorously– even if it is true:**

In the ** footnote to the above, Kaus outlines what might be the “Six Stages of MSM/Dem/Edwards’ Supporter Denial”.

**–For purposes of this item, I’m assuming we’re reaching the next-to-final stage of the natural progression in cases like this: 1) Too horrible and shocking; it can’t possibly be true; 2) It’s not true; 3) You can’t prove it’s true; 4) Why are you trying to prove it’s true? 5) It’s disgusting that you’ve proved it’s true; 6) What’s the big deal anyway? …

Don Surber, in “Dems do what MSM won’t“, wonders–most reasonably, we think:

When Edwards is not in Denver later this month, I wonder how ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC, and PBS will explain his absence.

Oh yeah: John Who?

UPDATE #1 16:20

Aaron Barnhart continues his observations at TV Barn [John Edwards love-baby story at the tipping point; this too is a "teachable moment"] on the MSM’s reporting of the scandal. He wonders, “But now, let me venture into more treacherous waters. Is Elizabeth Edwards also a public figure, and does this story need to be pursued regardless of the pain it causes her?”

Like most people, I really wish Elizabeth Edwards didn’t have to go through what her husband has put her through. But you know what? This too is a teachable moment. Nine years ago, when my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, she heard stories from her support group, stories of infidelity and breakup brought on by cancer and in particular, breast cancer.

If Elizabeth Edwards chooses, at the right time, to address this story, it too can be a teachable moment for her and every woman who has suffered insult on top of injury. It’s a moment when women can say, “You know what? That happened to me too. I had a husband who I thought was very devoted to me, and then I had a mastectomy, and he left me.” Or, “My boyfriend started stepping out when I was in chemo and wearing wigs.”

Barnhart makes several good points here, not the least is the one quoted above.

Eric Erickson, at Red State [John Edwards Creates Two Americas: One for legit kids. One for illegit kids.] signifies it’s Hammer-Time. As in, what he does to a particular nail on its head.

The former vice presidential nominee of the Democratic party, Presidential candidate this year, popular populist figure of the Democratic Party cheats on his wife who has cancer, gets some lady pregnant, sneaks around in the night to visit his baby’s mama, and the media acts like he’s a nobody not worth covering.

The double standard is impressive.

UPDATE #2: 16: 53 EDT

Susan at Wake Up America has some advice for John Edwards, [John Edwards May Lose Speaking Spot at Dem Convention If He Does Not Address the National Enquirer's Claims]

“It [the scandal] isn’t going to go away and the sooner he [Edwards] deals with it, one way or another, the sooner the firestorm will die away.”

Good advice, but the arrogant rarely take others’ advice–even after they’re cornered.

Scared Monkeys has a retort for all who cried “PhotoShop!”, when the Enquirer produced the photos of Edwards holding his daughter. [National Enquirer Claims Photos of John Edwards and his Love Child Frances Quinn Hunter]

However, one would pose the question if the tabloid story is an unfounded lie … where is the John Edwards law suit??? He is a trial lawyer.

A prediction from SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist, posted at The Moderate Voice [John Edwards: Please Phone Denver]:

Pearce ran Edwards’ 1998 Senate campaign and senses, as do I, that with the Raleigh (N.C.) News & Observer and some other MSM outlets now actively pursuing the story, it’s on the verge of going big time. Very big time.

by Mondoreb
images: National Enquirer