"We drew 'em a road map to the story. All they had to do was follow it and do a little basic reporting. We did it. Fox did it. They can, too--if they want to."
--David Perel, Editor-in-Chief, National Enquirer,
on the Mainstream Media failure to check out the John Edwards affair and cover-up
* David Perel on the National Enquirer's latest allegations in the John Edwards scandal [EDWARDS' HU$H MONEY TO MISTRESS], which involve hush money being funneled to Rielle Hunter, their baby and former Edwards Director of Finance, Andrew Young, who earlier claimed he was the father.
* When the pictures are coming out
* Whether there is a video of the whole Beverly Hilton episode
* Why the story is important
DBKP talked to David Perel today, and the National Enquirer's Editor-in-Chief had a little advice for slack-jawed competitors in the news biz who dismiss the story [John Edwards Love Child Scandal] because it appeared first in the Enquirer.
"Try doing a little basic reporting. Do the work. Prove us wrong."
A week after the National Enquirer's reporting team cornered John Edwards in a Beverly Hilton men's room, not a word about the growing scandal has appeared in the New York Times.
Nor on CNN, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, or in the pages of Time or Newsweek.
Four days after Fox News confirmed the confrontation by interviewing a security guard at the Beverly Hilton, we're assured by the LA Times that their "Metro Desk is on it".
No word from the Times Metro Desk on what they've uncovered. To our knowledge, the memo that Times Blog Editor, Tony Pearce, circulated to his reporters not to mention the scandal on-line, hasn't been rescinded.
No Denial from Edwards
A trial lawyer--one who has built his fortune and spent his life suing others--is accused of fathering an illegitimate child while running for president. He's later caught in the Beverly Hilton visiting his mistress and their love child, then runs from the Enquirer's reporters.
All together: juicy lawsuit time.
If the story is false.
Yet, Edwards hasn't threatened to take action against the Enquirer. What does this say?
David Perel just chuckled at the question--then hinted at more to come.
"We have a little more up our sleeve."
Perez Hilton [Hu$h Little Mistre$$] , scooped the New York Times and CNN on this story--merely by mentioning it. He asks the same questions as DBKP:
Johnny boy has yet to make a comment about the shenanigans asserted by the Enquirer.
Why not?
What do y'all think????
The Photos
What about the lack of coverage by the respectable press, and one report that the Mainstream Media is waiting for photos from the Enquirer before they'll cover the story?
"I thought Gawker wrote it beautifully this morning."
He then read the following passage from Ryan Tate's piece, "Edwards Mistress' Hush Money: $15,000/Month"
Also via Radar (see prior link), the Washington Post and Huffington Post are anxiously awaiting pictures from the Enquirer's reporting, because it's not enough that Edwards isn't denying the affair or love child, Hunter isn't denying the affair or love child, a team of Enquirer reporters saw Edwards go in and out of the hotel to visit the love child and a security guard confirmed to Fox News that Edwards hid from the Enquirer team just like the tabloid said.
The publications are also hungry for photos even though pictures of Edwards in or near a hotel will prove precisely nothing scandalous, in and of themselves. Talk about missing the point.
As DBKP's LBG pointed out: "The MSM is waiting for the Enquirer to release photos to legitimize the story of an illegitimate baby."
We agree. The mainstream press wants the Enquirer to do all the heavy lifting on the story, then, after the photos are published, tag along for the ride.
Their reasoning seems to be: the story is in the Enquirer. The Enquirer's not credible, so the story's not credible. But, when the Enquirer publishes the photos (You mean, in the same Enquirer that's not credible?), then we'll decide that it's credible enough to run with.
Got that?
We asked Perel about the MSM's call for photos. How about it?
"We're on our schedule. Because we're the only ones that pursued the story, they can't get it anywhere else. We're on our schedule and no one else's. We've been leading the way on this. You want to see more? Go out and do your own reporting."
This was as Radar reported Perel saying yesterday [Where Are the John Edwards Photos?]
"But no one will dictate the time-table for when we release our unpublished material. We've been setting the agenda, and will continue doing so."
Today, he added, "We drew 'em a road map to the story. All they had to do was follow it and do a little basic reporting. We did it. Fox did it. They can, too--if they want to."
What about rumors that the Enquirer is in possession of video footage of Edwards running from the Enquirer's reporters and hiding in the bathroom at the Beverly Hilton?
Perel thought about it and chuckled again.
"Hmmmm. We...we're not done. That's all I'm saying. We'll see."
Which would provide the MSM with at least one other excuse for not covering the story.
Maybe they're waiting for the movie.
Why hasn't Edwards denied the Enquirer's allegations since December, when the tabloid named Rielle Hunter as the mother of their love child?
Perel didn't hesitate.
"He can't."
Finally, what do you say to those who say that Edwards is no longer running for public office, so this is "not news"?
"He's in the running for vice-president. He's been mentioned as a cabinet member in a possible Barack Obama administration. His name is floating around as a candidate for Attorney General. This isn't news?
"He's on the road, making speeches and appearances. He held three press conferences last week. He's in the public eye."
As Perel told us last week, "He's someone who could be first in line for the presidency."
That sounded like a good argument to us--but then, we're not part of the Mainstream Media.
David Perel told us to be be ready and promised "there's more to come."
The Buzz
Silence of the Damned
Even though viewers of NBC News have not heard a word of this story, Don Surber reminded us that certain NBC viewers have: those who watch Jay Leno. Leno has been referencing the Edwards scandal on the Tonight Show.
"About the same number of people watch the Tonight Show, 6 million, as watch NBC News."
One would think it newsworthy that Edwards has issued no denials at all since October 2007. Even then, his denial was 1 part denial, 3 parts deflection.
His latest reaction was no denial--he stopped himself in mid-denial to attack the Enquirer instead of answering a Houston reporter's question.
In this, the mainstream press has allowed John "Master of Deflection" Edwards not only a free pass, but also free popcorn and soda as well.
Tim Worstall asks the question, [John Edwards Hush Money] "Isn't this interesting?:
Rielle Hunter is apparently receiving $15,000 a month in hush money via a rich friend of John Edwards.
No, no, of course there's no connection with any story about an affair or a love child. Must be just delayed payments for those movies she made, yes?
Meanwhile the MSM scrambles for excuses of not only failing to investigate and report the Edwards affair, but why they won't let others write about it.
"Today, Simon from Bloggasm, reports that he spoke with Tony Pierce, the LA Times blog editor to ask him about that email [asking LATimes bloggers to refrain writing about the Edwards affair.]."
A nice summary of the Bloggasm piece is presented by Susan Duclos of Wake Up America! [Bloggasm, LA Times Blog Editor, the National Enquirer and John Edwards]
[Edwards Mistress Getting $15,000 a Month to Keep Quiet]
We still can't figure out why the photos are so important, since they won't confirm anything Fox News hasn't already, but the absurdity with which this scandal is playing out in the media is matched only by the absurdity of the scandal itself, so I guess the nonsensical nature of it all is kind of fitting.
Simon Scowl, at Deceiver [Wanna See Rielle Hunter’s Old Site?] has an interesting post of Hunter's old website.
I haven’t started exploring it yet, but in light of current alleged events, the main page alone is a gold mine. Is there any irony to be found in any of those link headers? Hmmmm, could be:
He then lists the link headers with comments on a site he notes disappeared, then was put back up: "Looks like there are two Americas: the America where not-John-Edwards’-babymama Rielle Hunter has erased her web site from existence, and the America where someone else has put it right back up."
Finally, in the debate taking place at Wikipedia [Talk: Wikipedia] on when and how to include information of the scandal on the on-line encyclopedia's "John Edwards" entry, this point stood out:
Allowing the North Carolina local NBC affiliate and the state's own "paper of record," The Charlotte Observer, to break the story in this new way will allow for measured consent on the part of other MSM outlets to develop. When the "home town boys" run with a story that shames one of their own, the national media will follow.
by Mondoreb
image: National Enquirer
