John Edwards Scandal: WSJ Ties Media Woes to Scandal Non-Coverage
John Edwards Gets “Kid Gloves” Mainstream Media Treatment
Tom Bemis, at the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch [Media's self censorship is a bigger scandal than Edwards
Commentary: Is it any wonder that nobody buys newspapers any more?] comments on the media’s non-coverage of the John Edwards Scandal, after noticing that “no major network or national daily paper is doing anything with the story.”:
In February, the New York Times spilled barrels of ink, and clear-cut a forest to tell the world that — hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean? — Sen. John McCain allegedly had had an affair. This was great stuff, until someone bothered to vet the story.
By those standards, the Enquirer’s reporting on Edwards is Pulitzer grade stuff. (They have a picture.)
Although the Mainstream Media’s non-coverage of Edwards has been described as a “kid gloves” treatment elsewhere*, Bemis’s handling of the MSM is anything but.
The guy’s up for a cabinet post at least, maybe even veep — well, not any more.
But somehow, it’s just not relevant that he won’t answer questions about why he was hiding from a couple of trashy tabloid reporters in a bathroom at the Beverly Hills Hilton at 2:30 a.m.?
Enquiring minds want to know.
No wonder nobody bothers to buy newspapers anymore.
Exactly.
* Most recently by Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards’ 1998 Senate race. ““The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it’s clearly getting ready to bust out.” Among others using the phrase:
The John Edwards Love-Child Non-Story – mediabistro.com: FishbowlNY, John Edwards Update: The Silky Pony And His Foal – Right Wing News … and Patterico’s Pontifications » John Edwards’ Love Child (Updated)
by Mondoreb
image: dkimages
The Fortunate Son > John Edwards
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1
Reply
Mr. Bemis is right. McCain “incident” did not meet the applicable standards, Edwards’ “affair” did. And to go back to another one of your series of articles, Larry Sinclair does not meet the relevant standards. Obama’s “birth certificate” does.
However annoying – at least to me – is the format of your blog, you did some good work on this story and on Sinclair’s allegations too.
Reply