Blogosphere: Doing the Research the Mainstream Press Won’t Do

MSM: Trying to improve the Bottom Line?

Simon Scowl at Deceiver is upset. [Deceiver Scoops the NY Times]

He’s discovered that the blogosphere, which was the only place–besides, of course, the National Enquirer–doing any digging into John Edwards’ affair with Rielle Hunter and his cover up operation–is serving as the Mainstream Media’s unpaid and uncredited Research Division.

Simon begins: “If you’re curious about Bob McGovern, the Santa Barbara professional “intuitive” who’s in the middle of the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter scandal, please humor me and take this two-step test:

1. Read this. Pay particular attention to the date on it.
2. Read this. Try to find a link, or any reference whatsoever, to step 1.

”

Then, he unloads–as well he should.

Weird, huh? Deceiver was the only place talking about this stuff for at least a week and a half, and all of a sudden everybody else has been doing original research on it the whole time? Or maybe it doesn’t count as research when we do it, since we’re just a silly gossip blog with a hot-pink logo. Maybe that’s it.

Dear Serge F. Koveleski, Patrick Healy, Toby Lyles, and everybody else at the New York Times:

You know the blogs and tabloids beat you to this story. Everybody knows. It wasn’t exactly difficult, considering you guys waited almost three weeks for John Edwards to give you permission. You’re not going to salvage your reputation by pretending otherwise.

Also, somebody should talk to whoever writes your headlines. “Behind a Meeting That Exposed Edwards’s Affair”? Why not just type out an equivalent number of Z’s?

Signed,
Your uncredited researcher

UPDATES at end of story.
UPDATE#1: 10:52 EDT -Bash & Sleaze
UPDATE #2: 11:19 EDT – Timing and the Times, LA
UPDATE #3: 12:12 EDT – More original Research at the MSM
UPDATE #4: 12:55 EDT -Yet more “investigation” & Ridiculous Defined
UPDATE #5 13:23 EDT – Gawker Scoffs, Huffington Post tries a little revisionist history
FINAL UPDATE #6 18:30 EDT – New Story up: John Edwards and Fred Baron: The Ties that Bind

DBKP also has been affected. A few weeks ago, the Times of London’s SARAH BAXTER, inserted material from our July 23 John Edwards Affair: Interview with David Perel, Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer into her Times’ story–without a word about the source where she stole the material.

We wrote about the plagiarism after being alerted by blogger, Doug Ross in MSM Stealing Blog Content: Times Online Joining Growing MSM Trend?. Baxter’s article (readers will have to do their own Googling–the Times gets no link here) gives the impression that she contacted National Enquirer’s Editor-in-chief, David Perel and talked to him.

Our three letters to the Times remain unanswered. The Times Online still carries Baxter’s story with our material, without attribution.

These two cases are not the only ones: one reader alerted DBKP yesterday that portions of a story posted on one network’s website “sounded suspiciously like something you wrote about a few days ago”.

We read the article and suspected a little–okay, a lotta–rewriting may have occurred. But, what the hell? At least, some effort was expended by a Mainstream Media reporter furiously trying to get up to speed on a story Big Media blacked out for nine months with all the fervor of a religious zealot.

ALSO at DBKP: Click on banner to access 80 DBKP stories and videos on the John Edwards scandal.

Of course, the MSM wouldn’t have had to resort to these shady practices if just one of the members of their clubby community had investigated allegations surrounding John Edwards nine months ago: but that would’ve put a dent in the invitations to the wine-and-cheese parties.

The only investigation came from the National Enquirer and a few bloggers. But, you wouldn’t know it if you watched the Big Media frenzy of this past weekend. Some stories didn’t even mention the National Enquirer by name–it became an unnamed “tabloid”.

John Edwards’ “confession”–forced on him by the “tabloid trash” National Enquirer– transformed the MSM from an early-July Rip Van Winkle into August 8 Woodward and Bernsteins. Don’t believe that? Readers only have to stifle their gag reflex and tune in to the MSM coverage.

Readers–and writers–of the blogosphere can expect more of the same. With MSM “news” organizations cutting staff in an effort to stay afloat, stealing from the blogosphere serves as a profitable way to “cover” stories previously denied to readers.

The John Edwards scandal is only the latest battle between citizen journalists and a MSM in a death spiral. It won’t be the last. Big Media has proved incredibly resistant to changing editorial policies that have driven readers and viewers to find other, less left-leaning content.

Polls show that the percentage of people who trust what the MSM writes hovers somewhere between carnival barkers and used car salesmen. More Americans believe in UFOs than believe the Mainstream Media is unbiased.

The media reaction: attack citizen journalists and hunker down behind excuses of “standards” that drove ex-customers away with the highly-selective nature those standards were applied. Oh, and practice a code of denial that would make John Edwards proud.

The Mainstream Media wants to improve their bottom line?

Clean house of editors intent on serving up the same cheesy gruel of socialist opinion masquerading as news. The public’s been onto that scam for years: falling stock prices and ad revenues confirm it.

Or CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times could try billing the Democrat National Committee for PR services rendered.

P.S. Welcome to the latest scandal, Simon. They won’t report on this one, either.

UPDATE #1: Bash & Sleaze

Deceiver doesn’t. Blistering the LA Times is practically a spectator sport now.

Speaking of the biggest newspaper in the city where this incident happened, the better part of a month ago: Author Sarah Miller contributes to the LAT’s sudden burst of interest in this story with a fairly humorous account of her brief acquaintance with Rielle Hunter. A name that, if all you ever read was the LA Times, would’ve meant nothing to you until late Friday afternoon. And yet they’re already at the “wacky reminiscences” stage.
–Deceiver: Deceiver Scoops the NY Times

Mike Lupica unloads on John Edwards. And he uses a flame-thrower. [John Edwards is a liar and cheat who has mastered the sleazy art of hypocrisy]

Finally last week, Edwards came forward and admitted to the affair, not because he thought it was the right or decent thing to do, but because he got caught by the National Enquirer, once again doing the work of the national mainstream media. And even when caught, Edwards sat there with Bob Woodruff on “Nightline” and began a thought about his wife, Elizabeth, a cancer patient, this way:

“First of all, it happened during a period when [Elizabeth] was in remission from cancer.” Even typing those words is enough to give you the creeps – the way some of the weird, mean things Hunter says about Elizabeth Edwards in the current Newsweek will do the same.

Of course Edwards followed that by saying it was no excuse. Too late. Edwards has always been oil-slick slick. But that moment the other night, talking about his wife’s cancer and acting as if that fact was somehow relevant to the actual discussion at hand, exposed him as the ferret he really is.

John Edwards: Who acts as if he ought to get some kind of game ball, or at least honorable mention, because his wife’s cancer was under control while her husband was hitting the sheets with Rielle Hunter, who describes herself as a “filmmaker.” Sure she is. Says she makes “webisodes.” So did Paris Hilton.

…and Lupica’s only getting started.

UPDATE #2: 11:19 EDT -Timing and the Times, LA

A reader responded to a sentence in Lupica’s story above: “Somehow, John Edwards managed to run third in the Democratic primaries until he pulled out,” by observing, “Maybe if Edwards had pulled out sooner, he would have finished higher in the primaries”.

Our reply: “In life, as well as politics, timing is everything.”

TIME, which didn’t have a drop of ink to spare on the Edwards scandal for nine months, has a few for the question of who the heck Angelina Jolie is going to endorse. Mark Halperin comments on an issue, because after all, the public has a right to know: [Jolie Still Undecided on Her Candidate]

Both Obama and McCain camps have pursued the Hollywood superstar but she says she’s waiting to see what commitments each makes on international relief issues.

see-dubya at Michelle Malkin: Newspapers dying. You should care.

Debra Saunders, who’s a (the?) conservative columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, is upset by conservative glee every time a dead-tree newspaper takes a hit:

Conservatives rooting for newspapers’ demise should be careful what they wish for. Yes, fewer reporters mean fewer biased stories about lesbian immigrants fighting an unsympathetic establishment. But there also won’t be as many stories about sanctuary city policies gone bad, the latest zany law out of San Francisco City Hall or the growing bite that public employee pension systems are taking out of city and county services. They don’t understand that Fox News and talk radio aren’t going to report on stories that require local beat reporting and time-consuming and expensive investigation.

seedubya thinks Saunders has a point and cites examples, including the Your Black Muslim Bakery story.

No glee here, but no sympathy, either.

The MSM is lying in a bed, at least partly, of their own making: changing their editorial policies and reporting news in straightforward way would win back some ex-customers–one, for sure.

UPDATE #3: 12:12 EDT

ABC News asks a rhetorical question today “Is John Edwards Still Lying?” that DBKP answered yesterday, John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Continues Deception in Interview
]. We used Sam Stein, Huffington Post for backup, among others.

John Edwards’ Nightline “confession” will prove to be anything but.

NY POST, REAL DAD’ HAS LONG RAP SHEET, has a list of Andrew Young’s run-ins with the law, mostly for troubles encountered when under the influence.

What caught our attention about the piece, however was that the information appears to be the same that DBKP looked at on a website called “Web of Deception“. The writer at the Post, kboniello, doesn’t mention Web of Deception and instead credits “according to public records”.

No mention of where kboniello may have found those “public records”. Did kboniello do all that digging through NC “public records”? Or did the Post writer just copy down the Web of Deception info?

Readers can form their own opinions.

UPDATE #4: 12:55 EDT -Yet more “investigation” & Ridiculous Defined

More research, this time from the hard-hitting investigative wonders at ABC News.

ABC News today had a video report on Edwards. At about the one-minute mark in the video, the camera pans to a computer screen shot of Rielle Hunter’s old website.

Only problem is: that website disappeared weeks ago. Deceiver reported on it–again, weeks ago–and one of the Deceiver readers discovered a mirror site which contained the old Hunter webpage. But, last week, that mirror site info disappeared, also–as the aforementioned reader was copying it. Deceiver reported on that, as well.

So, hypothetically, where do you suppose ABC News got their camera shot from? Just because, we’re a member of the public and we have a right to know, ya know? When we tagged, “Expect more of the same” on the end of this article, when we posted it at another site, we didn’t realize how soon.

A reader sent us a link to a great read on the total ridiculousness of the Edwards claims. DBKP has maintained for months: if the MSM couldn’t get interested in what obviously was an unbelievable cover story, they were material for the morgue. From

“In one of the most ridiculous things I have read in a long time, Fred Baron, who was the former finance chairman for Edwards gave several million dollars to Rielle Hunter and bought her a mansion in California just to keep her quiet. Baron said that Edwards never knew about the hush money. Uh huh. So, apparently Edwards was convinced she had won the lottery or something because she never really had any money and lived on the east coast. So, soon after the affair ended, she turns up in California flush with cash and a new place to live.”

But wait! The blog, Crazy Days and Crazy Nights, has more!

But wait, it gets better. Andrew Young who is the guy who decided to admit he was the father of Hunter’s baby also got relocated to California and got cash to keep quiet. Now, why was he keeping quiet? Because he had a baby with Hunter? Or maybe it was a payoff for saying the baby was his, because the first story doesn’t make any sense. If they were paying him to keep quiet about the affair, then there would have had to have been a whole bunch more people to be paid off. You think only Hunter and Edwards and Young knew about it? Maybe there is a whole subdivision out here somewhere that has everyone who knew about the affair.

And then, CD&CN supplies even more–including a far-fetched rumor that doesn’t quite look so far-fetched today. The Mainstream Media will probably check it, though. Look at the swill they swallowed for nine months from Edwards.

UPDATE #5 13:23 EDT – Gawker Scoffs, Huffington Post tries a little revisionist history

Again, from a reader, comes this scathing critique of Huffington Post, as well as others in the MSM from Gawker’s Alex Pareene: Meet the Journalists Who Missed the Edwards Story.

Pareene relates the tale of an email received by Gawker back in September 2007 and now is recalled by an ex-Gawker writer. The email contains a LOT, including, “Mrs. Edwards was calling around in the group of production types – to try to get the number of this girl. (Perhaps to try to put a stop to the shenanigans.) I could tell you my source but I don’t want to rat her out. She’s in that circle. She was there two times when Mrs. Edwards called.

“I knew of this long before I saw the recent blind item in the post. (Page 6).” [NOTE: Which appeared on August 27, 2007.]

Pareene then takes a look at the fearless HuffPo.

And wouldn’t you know it, around this time the Huffington Post began their odd and aborted investigation into those “webisodes.” (1, 2, 3) For some reason the HuffPo wanted to know why those webisodes had been erased from the Edwards site. Oddly, HuffPo stopped writing in-depth about them and Rielle Hunter as soon as the Enquirer went public with the affair allegation. (We’ve still never heard any explanations for HuffPo’s role in this whole saga—both setting up the foundation for the allegation and then backing the fuck off when it came out.)

We couldn’t agree more. On July 31, DBKP reported on the HuffPo historical revisionism, John Edwards Scandal: Birth Certificates, NBA Players and the Waking of the MSM. Here’s what we said almost two weeks ago:

The Huffington Post comes into this round of the John Edwards scandal better late than never. Though HuffPo’s Sam Stein started the whole ball rolling on Rielle Hunter back in September 2007 with, “Edwards Mystery: Innocuous Videos Suddenly Shrouded In Secrecy“, the website had been positively MSM-like in its coverage until a few days ago.

Rachel Sklar, in “Why Won’t The Media Cover Edwards? Because They Don’t Have To Yet“, attempts a bit of revisionist history.

With the exception of this site, the National Enquirer and Mickey Kaus, the media has been virtually mum on the matter of John Edward’s alleged mistress and her alleged baby that’s allegedly his.

As of last weekend, there were more references to why HuffPo wasn’t covering the latest Love Child news than HuffPo has stories on the affair.

Yeah, Rachel, appears we were the only ones who noticed that HuffPo was tongue-tied, on the subject of the Edwards scandal, from September until late July.

To be fair, HuffPo picked up the pace after Sklar’s post appeared on July 30.

FINAL UPDATE #6 18:30 EDT – New Story up: John Edwards and Fred Baron: The Ties that Bind

by Mondoreb
image: dbkp reference file