Counterculture Con HQ

February 3, 2010

How the Establishment Media Ran From the John Edwards Scandal

If you follow rightwing blogs, the Edward’s affair was old news by the time it hit the mainstream media.  I am talking months of lag time here.  So what took them so long?  It’s not like they’re above this sort of thing.  After all, the New York Times had no problem trying to smear John McCain with allegations of an affair, with scant evidence to back it up.  Recall they did this the day after he accepted the GOP nomination.  They had the story timed for maximum impact.  And this was after the Times had endorsed him over other GOP contenders!  Knaves.  In the end, there was nothing there.  So what gives?   It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that McCain is a Republican and Edwards a Democrat, would it?  Noooo.  Of course not.  haha!

Two weeks before the 2008 Iowa caucuses, the National Enquirer published a detailed story reporting that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had had an affair, and that the woman involved, campaign videographer Rielle Hunter, was pregnant, and that Edwards had arranged for an aide to falsely claim to be the father, and that Hunter and the aide and the aide’s family were being taken care of financially by a wealthy Edwards backer. At the time, Edwards was a real contender in the Democratic presidential race, so when the Enquirer story was published, the Edwards camp prepared for what some believed would be an onslaught of media scrutiny. But it didn’t come. At the time, Edwards thought he had outsmarted the watchdogs of the press, frustrating their best attempts to uncover the story. But it later turned out that many journalists just didn’t want to report the news and hadn’t tried very hard to uncover the facts.

But when the Enquirer story was published, nothing much happened. “To our relief, no serious newspaper or TV network picked up the story because they couldn’t find a source to confirm it,” Young writes. “Our phones and those of our friends and relatives rang constantly with calls from reporters and producers, but we ignored them all. Rielle and the campaign followed the same strategy, and since they still play by the multi-source rule, the big print and broadcast news organizations were stymied.” The damage was confined to a few websites. “We began to think that perhaps our strategy had worked,” Young writes.

But the Enquirer was not finished with the story. In July 2008, the tabloid published a detailed account of Edwards’ visit with Hunter and the baby at a Los Angeles hotel. “Andrew, they caught me,” a tearful Edwards is quoted as telling Young in a phone conversation. “It’s all over.”

Surely now, Young thought, the press would jump on the story. But it didn’t happen, at least not quickly. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the broadcast networks and the cable news outlets — none reported the story. And yet this time it bubbled up, from the blogs to talk radio to late-night television. By the second week of August, Edwards appeared on ABC News to semi-confess.

An explosive scandal had been kept out of the press for months at a time when the man at the center of it was an important player in national politics. Why? Young thought it was because the Edwards camp so tightly controlled information that journalists weren’t able to find sources to corroborate the Enquirer’s reporting. Perhaps that was part of it. But the fact was, many editors and reporters just didn’t want to tell the story. They admired Elizabeth Edwards. They saw no good in exposing John Edwards’ sordid acts. They looked down on the National Enquirer. An account in the New York Times openly confessed the paper’s “lack of interest” in the story. One Times editor told the paper’s ombudsman that the Edwards story was “classically not a Times-like story,” and the Times’ top editor, Bill Keller, explained that the “hold-your-nose quality about the Enquirer” helped account for the paper’s reluctance not just to publish but to even look into the story. “In the case of John Edwards,” said Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz, “even though it was clearly out there, everybody in America knew about this well before CNN and The New York Times and The Washington Post got into this game — there was still a great reluctance.”

Read the rest, here. 

At least Fox News made inquiries, even if they didn’t get very far.  But not the MSM!  Nothing to see here, move along!  This is why people on the Right are more informed than are the Lefties.  The latter have no clue what the buzz is on the rigtwing side of the spectrum because they rarely venture to our side; they have an enormous blind spot.  While the same is not true for us.  Our view is 360 degrees.  We knew on day one about the John McCain allegations, and were months ahead of them re John Edwards.  Why?  Simple.  The mainstream media bombards us 24/7 with the Lefty narrative.  We know what Lefty is hyperventilating about at all times.  The John Edwards story clearly illustrates the same isn’t true for them.


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: