MSM Using Blogosphere as an Unpaid, Uncredited Research Dept.

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

MSM: Trying to improve the Bottom Line?



Simon Scowl at Deceiver is upset.

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.

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 to story at DBKP.com: Mainstream Media Uses Blogosphere as Unpaid Research Wing in Edwards Scandal

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 lot--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.

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 club, Simon.

by Mondoreb
image: dbkp reference file

John Edwards Affair, Leftblogosphere: No Good Time to Talk About Edwards

Let me tell you about a story I didn't want to write about back in December...

Left bloggers--who didn't want to report any of the John Edwards allegations back in December, never mind investigate them--are up in arms because John Edwards is being reported by Fox in August.

To be fair, the left side of the Blogosphere did
comment on the National Enquirer's allegations back in December: mostly, they hurled invective at those who did write about it.

Satyam, Think Progress [Fox News Host Refuses To Talk About Russia-Georgia War, Insists On Covering Edwards’ Affair, like a magician, wants readers to look at the war in his one hand while whisking away the Edwards scandal in his other.

Yesterday, Russia launched a major military offensive against Georgia, which Georgia has called “a state of war.” Nearly two thousand people have died and the conflict risks sparking a wider war. Also yesterday, former senator John Edwards admitted to having an extramarital affair in 2006.

Of course, a look back at a July 11, 2005 Think Progress post, It’s Not the Crime, It’s The Cover-Up, showed a completely different standard.

Hello, Washington Press Corps. What is the thirty year rule that has defined every White House scandal since Watergate? It is not the crime, it’s the cover-up that gets you in trouble.

What a difference three years--and party affiliation--make: TP was referring to Karl Rove and the Valerie Plame affair.

Steve Benen, Carpetbagger's Report, [War, schmar, there’s Edwards gossip to obsess over], has a headline just as strident. However, the tone of the post is more reasoned.

Media interest in John Edwards’ adultery controversy is probably inevitable. He’s not a sitting lawmaker or candidate for anything anymore, but he’s a well-known political figure caught up in a sex scandal. News outlets are going to cover this; it’s unavoidable.

My Left Wing, [Curmudgette :: Fair, Balanced, All Edwards, All the Time] posts the following--with which we heartily agree:

Now I would be the last person to say that the Edwards affair is not news. In fact, I've pretty consistently argued that it is news. But this is positively surreal.

The major media didn't breathe a word about Edwards while he was running for president. No effort was made to check out the places, dates, license numbers and other hard facts reported by the Enquirer back in December.

As has been noted countless times at DBKP, not one reporter even asked him about the Enquirer's allegations in December. Thus, Edwards--contrary to MSM reports that cite his "continuous denials" and "Edwards denied it December" angles to explain their non-coverage--did not address the issue of Rielle Hunter after November 29, 2007.

Edwards never had to address the Enquirer's allegations once they became specific in December. He could easily deny the October Enquirer story, which was general in nature at that point. The tabloid did not even name Rielle Hunter at that point--even though Hunter issued a denial then. [Why Did Rielle Hunter Denounce the National Enquirer NINE WEEKS Before the Paper Would Name Her as the “Other Woman?]

DBKP, though it has almost 80 stories on the Edwards scandal since December, didn't even write about the October Enquirer allegations. We felt there really wasn't anything to write about at that point: it fell totally in the realm of gossip--though who doesn't like gossip?

However, the December Enquirer allegations were a completely different animal. Anyone giving them a fair reading in August 2008 wonders that not one MSM reporter thought they were "curious", to say the least.

On December 23, 2007, we introduced one story with [The Edwards Scandal, The Press, The Enquirer and the Blogosphere]:

The story so far of John Edwards, his campaign and Rielle Hunter, the uncovering of hard facts by the National Enquirer, the Mainstream Media’s non-reaction, and the blogosphere’s fondness for the comfort that only sitting on one’s ass brings.

We observed then how the other half of the blogosphere operates.

DBKP has previously written about Sam Stein, a writer doing a fairly routine piece for Huffington Post about the new ways candidates were trying to reach Internet readers.

One of those new methods was something called a webisode, a short video for letting Internet users see a candidate in a more personal way. John Edwards wanted users to see “the real John Edwards”, as he says in his recently-rediscovered video.

Stein recounted his surprising adventures with seeing the Edwards video. That Stein was having a tough time running down something that should have been screaming for publicity interested him.

When he wrote about his adventures, a certain section of the blogosphere pilloried Stein and his musings on the subject. At that point, Rielle Hunter was not as well-known as she is today. Running down information on her required a little digging.

Sam Stein did that digging and was rewarded for his efforts with a mound of vitriol.

A reporter who had done actual work on a story was ridiculed by writers who had sat on their asses.

“Sam Stein and the Enquirer are nothing but lazy, no-good trashy gossips”

The Think Progress piece mentions a Fox interview with PBS’s Bonnie Erbe. Ms. Erbe is quoted as saying that the Edwards affair is “not the stuff the American public wants to hear about in this election cycle.”

Au contrair, Bonnie.

"Rielle Hunter", "John Edwards", "John Edwards affair" and "John Edwards scandal" were four of the top seven search terms on July 22 at one point. They have remained, to one degree or another, in the Top 100 Most Searched at Google since then. So, Ms. Erbe, there have been plenty of Americans searching for information on this topic. They had to: PBS joined the other MSM in not mentioning it, prior to August 8.

PBS didn't discuss it back in December; they didn't discuss it prior to July 21 either. Bonnie Erbe didn't want to discuss it today, though one would suppose that Bonnie knew the topic to be discussed when invited to appear on Fox News. Just exactly when would Erbe's PBS like to discuss this topic?

All readers who said, "never" or "seldom" get a cookie.

The same portion of the blogosphere who only wanted to discuss how vulgar those that did discuss it in December are back to their same arguments in August. Most Americans are vulgar, it must be supposed.

We agree that the zero-to-media-circus coverage now is a little much. However, a little discussion during the last eight months might have prevented the 24/7 news status the Leftblogosphere is complaining about today.

Some blogs have mostly remained silent or made a few comments and let it stand at that. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take: there is other news to discuss. But it's not reasonable to attack those who do discuss it.

That's the job of Big Media.

by Mondoreb
images: dbkp file

John Edwards Affair: Edwards Claims He Was 99 Percent Honest About Affair

John Edwards has released this statement to the press.

In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99 percent honest is no longer enough.

I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then. I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.

It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry. In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up — feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.

I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.

It may not be too early to observe that John Edwards has, with this statement, given the National Enquirer--and the small part of the Blogosphere who wrote about this when no one else did--a huge story for the foreseeable future.

by Mondoreb
image: National Enquirer
Source: Statement from Edwards on his affair

John Edwards Affair: Edwards Admits Affair with Rielle Hunter

In a coldly-calculated political move, John Edwards has now admitted that he had an affair, but did not father Rielle Hunter's daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter.

In an interview with ABC News Nightline admitted that he had an affair with Rielle Hunter and lied about it while campaigning for President.

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

Just a few days after leading Democrats called for Edwards to deny the affair or risk losing a prime speaking spot at the Democrat National Convention, Edwards did not deny the affair--something he has not done since a November 29, 2007 interview.

The political calculus is: Edwards hopes that his admission of having an affair will allow the incident to blow over, allowing him to procede with his political career.

According to ABC News, which has refused to report on the event previously, "Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father."

The announcement may prove to raise more questions than it answered.

One question which immediately comes to mind: What was Edwards doing leaving the Bevrly Hilton at 2:40 in the morning, visiting a woman he says he did not love and her baby, which he says he did not father?

UPDATES to follow at DBKP.com

by Mondoreb

John Edwards Affair: WSJ Links Scandal Non-Coverage to MSM Financial Woes

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

John Edwards Scandal: Photos Shift the Scandal to MSM Coverage

Will Media cover it now?

"You can bring a MSM reporter to the story, but you can't make him report it."
--DBKP's LBG

Radar contacts Hairstylist

The Enquirer gives the MSM a BIG smoking gun

August 6 turned out to be Christmas for many mainstream media outlets across America, as the National Enquirer gave them not one, but a whole collection of smoking guns. [THE PHOTOS EVERYONE'S BEEN WAITING FOR!]

The Enquirer released the long-awaited John Edwards scandal photos. The traditional press now has the "proof" that they have been using as a reason not to report the story to their readers.

The Enquirer gave the MSM a smoking gun over two weeks ago: Edwards running from reporters as he was leaving the Beverly Hilton.

"Not big enough," said some, while others thought it didn't even look like a gun: it was only an Enquirer toy gun.

But will many MSM outlets report it even now?

The New York Times' quandary now--outside of stock that's dropped to half its value a year ago--is: How do you hide a howitzer from your readers, many whom already knew about it by searching the Internet?




THE REAL SCANDAL

The real scandal wasn't that Edwards fathered a baby while married to a cancer-stricken wife. It may not even have been the "elaborate cover up", as the Enquirer labels it. It was the monolithic refusal of the American mainstream press to even investigate the facts of the story, which were, with the application of a little legwork, easy enough for them to investigate.

After Edwards was caught by the Enquirer's reporters at the Beverly Hilton at 2:40 in the morning July 22, the reason for not reporting was "there's no confirmation". When FoxNews confirmed the run-in by interviewing one of the hotel security guards involved, the reason shifted to, "We want to see pictures".

Two weeks ago, Enquirer Editor-in-Chief, David Perel told us, "The onus is on them to do some reporting."

But outside of a few dailies and a few mentions at FoxNews, there was none. Customers of CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, Time, Newsweek and the LA Times --where LAT's Blogs Editor, Tony Pearce, infamously and specifically ordered his reporters not to blog on the topic--are still in the dark.



We weren't the only ones in the blogosphere that takes deserved shots at the Mainstream Media for it lack of Edwards coverage.

Gateway Pundit [National Enquirer Releases Photo of John Edwards & Love Child] observes that "the National Enquirer continues to do the hard journalism the mainstream media refuses to do". The photos he concludes are "Proof that is just too much for the tainted American media."

Gawker's Alex Pareene expands on the theme [The Edwards Love-Child Old Media Doesn't Want You to See]:

Hooray! The National Enquirer has published photos of former political person John Edwards with a baby. The baby is almost certainly made up in part of DNA he left in a woman named Rielle Hunter, a former Edwards staffer who now spends her time cashing checks and hiding in hotels and denying everything to the media (until Good Morning America finally books her!). So now would be a perfect time for, like, established print media to cover this story, right? Anyone? Ha, no, they are all too embarrassed. Once again, it's up to the internet!

Radar did some legwork by contacting the Chapel Hill hairstylist of Andrew Young's wife, Cheri, and concluded: "And there you have it: definitive proof of the affair! Get to it, mainstream media!"

They detail their efforts with their tongues-in-cheek, which highlight the glamourous-not side of reporting: [Stylist At Center Of John Edwards Lovebaby Rumors Clams Up]

With a little bit of legwork, we established that Young gets her hair done at Mina's in Chapel Hill. We tried repeatedly to get Young's stylist on the phone, but were told that she wasn't authorized to speak to the press, and that we'd have to go through the owner, Louann. Louann seemed quite amused when we briefly explained why we wanted to talk to the stylist four days ago (all we said was that Cheri Young had been in the news, and that we wanted to talk to her for a few minutes); she said that she'd ask the stylist if she felt comfortable talking and get back to us, but that it didn't seem like it would be a problem.

When she got back to us today, however, her tone was a little different: "She knows nothing, they've never had a conversation about that," she said politely but firmly. When we asked what "that" referred to, Louann said, "That's all I will really say about this."

Thus, Louann was asked one more time about the scandal than John Edwards was from November 2007 through July 23, 2008.

UPDATES to follow at DBKP.com [John Edwards Scandal: Enquirer Give MSM a BIG Smoking Gun]


by Mondoreb
images: national enquirer; military pictures

John Edwards Scandal: National Enquirer PHOTOS Released

National Enquirer: Edwards with Baby

Mainstream Press Interested Now?
Edwards Laying Low
Print Trumps Digital for some Areas of the Country




Editors all over America are scampering to the checkout line to buy the latest edition of the National Enquirer, which contains the photos they were waiting on: John Edwards scandal photos.

The National Enquirer has released its latest information in the John Edwards Scandal investigation.

The stunning “spy photo” shows the former presidential contender holding his infant daughter Frances Quinn Hunter at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles – where the ENQUIRER caught him visiting the baby’s mother, his mistress Rielle Hunter.

Edwards is holding his love child while standing in front of a distinctive striped curtain.

The same window covering hangs in each one of the hotel’s guest rooms – and is clearly visible in photos of guest rooms on the hotel’s Web site.
National Enquirer: THE PHOTOS EVERYONE'S BEEN WAITING FOR!

A source quoted by the Enquirer states, "His elaborate coverup is unraveling at the seams.”

Alerted to the existence of the photos by a reader earlier, DBKP, like those many mainstream media editors, checked the Enquirer's website--which still was silent on the matter--and left in pursuit of the latest edition of the Enquirer.

No luck. The new issue was not available yet in our area. When we returned twenty minutes ago, the Enquirer's site featured the damning photos.




Look for updates to this and an earlier DBKP story throughout today.

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

A new debate will begin today in MSM outlets, as the pictures are hard evidence of the scandal the traditional press refused to report. The new debate will doubtless feature those who present new reasons for not reporting.

The Enquirer last week reported hush money in the Edwards Scandal mix.

The new Enquirer also features news of the money connection from John Edwards to Rielle Hunter, and pictures of the homes of Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young.

One interesting photo shows John Edwards in front of the hotel room window pulling the drapes closed. He appears to be sweating--or it could be where the baby, Frances Quinn Hunter, drooled on his shirt.

UPDATES to follow.

by Mondoreb
image: dbkp file; National Enquirer

John Edwards Scandal: Where's Andrew Young?

"[Andrew Young] is living large, [in California] with no visible means of support."
--DBKP on John Edwards' former Director of Finance, Andrew Young.



What's happened to Andrew Young, one of the central players in the John Edwards love child scandal?

Young stepped forward, claiming he was the father of Rielle Hunter soon-to-be-born baby back in December. From the National Enquirer's UPDATE: JOHN EDWARDS LOVE CHILD SCANDAL!:

A former "Director of Operations" for Edwards' campaign, Young's last official position with the campaign was "North Carolina Finance Director." He left that job about a month ago - about the same time Rielle settled in Chapel Hill.

A source close to Young vehemently denies that he funneled campaign money to Rielle - who drives a BMW SUV registered in Young's name.

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

For readers new to the story, from December's [John Edwards’ Love Child Scandal: Reille Hunter “Kept” Woman]:

Former Edwards campaign Director of Operations, Andrew Young, gives Open Marriage advocates something to cheer about.

The 41-year-old former “North Carolina Finance Director” of the Edwards campaign has stepped forward and not only claimed the “alleged” love child of John Edwards as his but has also moved his six months pregnant mistress, Reille Hunter, into the same multi-million dollar gated community as his own wife and children.

No word from Young’s wife on how well she’s adjusted to the new neighbor, the ‘other woman' and the impending “bundle of joy.”

According to the National Enquirer, the bald-headed stepchild of the MSM, an unnamed source claims Young, and his ‘first’ family, his legally married wife and legitimate children, had dinner with his pregnant paramour in her newly acquired abode.

Hunter and Young's purported relationship was perhaps the strangest item in a strange cover story. More from December's Enquirer:

A day later, in a shocking twist, the attorney for Mr. Young issued a statement that Young fathered Rielle's baby!

"Andrew Young is the father of Ms. Hunter's unborn child," declared his Washington, D.C.-based attorney.

"Sen. Edwards knew nothing about the relationship between these former co-workers, which began when they worked together in 2006.

"As a private citizen who no longer works for the campaign, Mr. Young asks that the media respect his privacy while he works to make amends with his family."

So just how has Andrew Young been doing in the seven-plus months since the Enquirer published its allegations? Has he made "amends with his family? The same family that played host to Rielle Hunter for dinner at their home, according to the Enquirer?

According to the National Enquirer's latest print edition (the information is not on the Enquirer's website), dated August 11 2008, Andrew Young has followed his bliss, so to speak; following Hunter to California--and bringing along his wife and their young children.

The source also revealed that to keep the coverup going, Andrew Young, 42, and his family relocated to Santa Barbara, CA, where Rielle is living with her child.

"Young had to pretend to be by her side--but he's living in a separate home with his wife and young children. The word is that he's sick of living this lie. His wife Cheri is particularly fed up," said the source.

Young and his wife are still married, despite his claim that he fathered Rielle's child, a claim that sources say is absolutely false and part of Edwards' elaborate coverup.

In December, DBKP characterized Young's statement as "taking a bullet for the [Edwards campaign] team".

Now, a reliable DBKP source reports that Young is indeed in Santa Barbara, "living large with no visible means of support."

That Young might have followed Hunter across the country, to be with the mother and child, would have been believable. But, dragging his wife and children across the country so they could also be close to Hunter and her child?

That's a Jerry Springer wet dream.

To those who decry that this is of no import, we present Susan Estrich, who is no conservative apologist: Estrich, August 1, at FoxNews.com [Is an Ex-Senator's Alleged Love Child News?] recalls:

It feels like only yesterday that I was spending half my time arguing just that, as Republicans sought to make President Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky into an impeachable offense. It wasn’t the sex, they argued, but the lying. I never bought that. It was the sex. Yes, she was an intern. On the other hand, she didn’t get pregnant and have a child. On the other hand, he didn’t have one of his aides come forward and say he was the guy who had the affair: in this case, the fall guy, if that’s what he was, was a younger former associate who was and is married with children, and supposedly invited the woman and child to his home for dinner with his wife and children after publicly taking responsibility for the pregnancy, all of which understandably contributed to people wondering if all of them knew something we didn’t. Like the truth.

Setting up a fall guy to protect the big shot, if that’s what it was (and that’s certainly how it looks), understandably bothers a lot of people. It’s one thing to mess up; it’s one thing to say, truthfully, that the details are not any of our business and simply to refuse to answer questions. If he can live with that, and his wife and kids can live with that, and the other woman can live with that, we should live with that. But setting up some other guy, especially a guy who is married and has a family of his own, to take responsibility sort of stinks.

Estrich then asks a few of the same questions posed here about this pretzel-like cover story gone wild:

Besides, if he really was the father, as he announced publicly, why not put his name on the birth certificate? And why hasn’t he come forward in the last two weeks since the Enquirer broke the latest story? One of my friends, who is himself in the news business, says he’s been trying, without success, to find the guy for the last two weeks. I don’t blame the putative father for disappearing, but, coupled with the empty space on the birth certificate, it certainly doesn’t look good for the senator.

NOTE to Susan E.: tell your news friend to start looking in Santa Barbara, CA. Andrew Young should not be that difficult to find, using Santa Barbara as a starting point.

TIP: Remember, apparently, he's come into some money.

WARNING: "Newsfriend" may have to leave his desk. Perhaps, even actually have to go to Santa Barbara to do this--but maybe not.

After all, if such tabloid trash as the National Enquirer was able to track Young and his family down, surely a crack investigative reporter from the mainstream press should do the same.

by Mondoreb

John Edwards Scandal: Press Coverage on Hold For Enqurer

August 4, 2008
John Edwards Scandal Media Coverage

* Using the John Edwards Scandal Microscope to Examine Mainstream Media Fossils
* NewBusters Edwards Scandal Two-fer
* Conspiracies and Caffeine
* Montross: "Not Involved"



BRITISH MEDIA WRITER EXAMINES AMERICAN DINOSAUR


Mainstream Media Fossil Collection


Guy Adams, of the Independent, paints a picture of the American Mainstream Media. [Guy Adams' US Media Diary: The 'scoop' the US papers ignored]

Hint: Adams doesn't use many bright colors.

That old cliché about everything being bigger in America seems especially pertinent when attempting to describe the sheer scale of the crisis currently afflicting the US newspaper industry, which makes all Fleet Street's woes look like a summer picnic.

Last week, The Los Angeles Times decided to flog its historic downtown offices, on top of sacking 150 of its 870 journalists. So did The Chicago Tribune. Almost every title in the land is now shedding staff; a hundred New York Times hacks have been offered voluntary redundancy; Newsweek recently announced cuts. It's a bloodbath out there, as US media companies attempt to claw a pound of flesh from haemorrhaging readerships.

Adams then offers a bit of advice to his American Cousins.

The Edwards story could be selling truckloads of newsprint. It is attracting enormous traffic online, and has been devoured by viewers of Fox, the only TV network to report it. In ignoring the affair, newspapers are sacrificing potential readers and repeating the mistakes of the 1990s, where they loftily decided against reporting Bill Clinton's many bedroom misdeeds, allowing internet sites to claim the Monica Lewinsky "scoop."

One of the top LA Times execs, Tony Pierce, has higher concerns, though. He recently sent staff an edict. "There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair," it read. "Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumours or salacious speculations."

I can't pretend to know what Mr Pierce does with his 870 journalists. But if he'd asked just one of them to check out these "salacious rumours" regarding John Edwards the LA Times might have a few more readers, and fewer of the 870 staffers might have to be cut from its bloated payroll.

Adams is spot-on in his advice. One guess: the MSM has heard, and ignored it all before. The dreary picture he painted at the beginning will only get darker, fueled by the hubris that infects the dinosaur that is the traditional liberal-left mainstream American press.

NEWSBUSTERS JOHN EDWARDS SCANDAL TWO-FER



It was a two-for-one John Edwards Scandal coverage at NewsBusters on Monday.

First, PJ Gladnick examines Guy Adams' examination [British Writer Claims MSM Silence on Edwards Scandal Reflects Newspaper Decline] at NewsBusters:

Perhaps it takes a foreigner looking from the outside in to give us a clear look at the overall meaning of the mainstream media silence on the alleged John Edwards scandal. In this case it is Guy Adams writing in his US Media Diary in the UK Independent about "The 'scoop' the US papers ignored."

Also, in the same piece, Gladnick gives readers their money's worth by revisiting the KC Star's Aaron Barnhart's latest. Gladnick notices that Barnhart had "backtracked" from an earlier statement(more below).

And lastly, Mr. Gladnick comes to our defense(!!!), positing the possibility that Barnhart had, perhaps, mis-categorized DBKP, after our critique [John Edwards Scandal: KC Writer Cites “Veiled Threats”, Denials as Likely] of an earlier piece by Barnhart.

Gladnick finishes with a flourish. We won't provide any quotes on this particular; however, the curious reader may, with a simple click of the wrist, find out for himself what Gladnick said about the brave toilers for truth and profit here at the Worldwide Leader in Weird. Hint: it involves a color.

Got all that?

One wonders that there was anything left for NBs to write about, but Noel Sheppard completed the NB media tag-team by reporting on Lee Stranahan's ban at DailyKos [Daily Kos Bans Blogger For Writing About Edwards Scandal]. Sheppard concluded is article with:

As there are always two sides to these kinds of stories, I look forward to receiving some nasty e-mail messages from Markos Moulitsas telling me how I've completely misinterpreted Stranahan's excommunication. Stay tuned.

DBKP also examined Stranahan's KOS banishment [John Edwards Scandal: DailyKOS Bans Stranahan for Writing About Edwards].

Ryan Tate shined the Gawker spotlight on the Stranahan KOS ban[Blogger Banned Over Edwards Scandal Posts]:

Lee Stranahan's post about lefty blogs ignoring the John Edwards affair was apparently the most highly trafficked story on the Huffington Post for at least two days. But when he crossposted the item to his "diary" on Daily Kos, it was suddenly not so popular! Go figure. The "liberal" militants there excoriated Stanahan in the comments, with one well-rated response declaring, "you are violating site standards referencing the Enquirer [and its Edwards coverage], a bannable offense." That's funny, because just a few years ago multiple Kos diarists trumpeted an unflattering Enquirer story about Bush, including one who said, "Sometimes the National Enquirer reports things better than the Washington Post." That person is still active on the site, but Stranahan is not so lucky!

Is Tate implying that DailyKOS may have flexible standards?


KC WRITER RESPONDS TO DBKP

Aaron Barnhart ["John Edwards and Buck O'Neil: Two stories, some sound, much fury, no action] admits, "Perhaps I spoke too soon about the whole "John Edwards story going mainstream" business."

DBKP reported last week [John Edwards Scandal: KC Writer Cites “Veiled Threats”, Denials as Likely] on Aaron's views on the MSM's John Edwards Scandal coverage [The John Edwards love-baby story: What took so long?]. Aaron good-naturedly concluded:

Reaction to my piece has ranged from the adversarial to the hotly adversarial to off-the-charts, like this blogger whose line-by-line analysis of my story would make any JFK/9-11/TWA 800 conspiracy theorist proud.

But hey, if that's the price I must pay for this kind of traffic ... where do I sign up for auto-debit?

We'll plead the fifth--as in espresso--defense. Writing for the last seven months about the MSM's Edwards non-coverage also tends to have that effect on us after awhile.

True Confession Time: Okay, so our favorite movie is pictured below. What of it?



MONTROSS AT A LOSS

Radar [Eric Montross Would Like You to Know He's Never Met Rielle Hunter, Thank You Very Much] backtracked on their earlier sspeculation about ex-NBA player and Edwards' backer, Eric Montross [John Edwards' Money Man: Fellow Tar Heel Eric Montross?]. Radar reports Montross' reaction to his name coming up in the John Edwards Scandal.

"I don't have anything to do with this," Montross told Radar by phone. "Whatever is going on with Edwards, I can tell you unequivocally that I am uninvolved."

Both are fine reads--not the least because they both mentioned our "John Edwards Scandal: Rielle Hunter Housed by Ex-NBA Player" of December 17, 2008.

We'll just say:
1-We believe Montross;
2-We'll address the subject later today--after some shut-eye;
3=After our fifth espresso.


by Mondoreb
image: horror-wood

John Edwards Scandal: June 2007 Eventful Month for Edwards

June 7, 2007

John Edwards Accepts "Father of the Year" Award





Mid-June 2007

John Edwards Renews His Wedding Vows by providing pictures to People magazine and Good Morning America.




May-June 2007

"...rather ironic that John Edwards was at a New York Sheraton for a luncheon on 6/7/07 to receive a "Father of the Year" award given out by "The National Father's Day Committee". I know that it has been reported that Rielle Hunter had been living at the time of this luncheon in the New York City vicinity and it is interesting that, assuming her child Frances Quinn was a full-term baby, that the date Rielle conceived would have been right around 6/7/07."
--DBKP Reader K.F.

by Mondoreb
Images: People ; brendatate

Seven-month Pregant Woman Who Was Tasered 'Not Guilty'

Protect and Serve--and Taser



A woman who was tasered in the neck while she was seven-months pregnant was found not guilty by an Ohio jury. The incident happened in November 2007.

Valreca Redden, 33, was charged with resisting arrest and obstruction of official business by police officer Michael Wilmer. The incident occurred when Redden visited the police department about giving up her one-year-old son.

Wilmer grabbed Redden, got her son away from her, then forced her to the ground and stunned her in neck when she resisted being handcuffed.

Wilmer has since been fired from the police department for reasons unrelated to the Redden affair. He said the visibly-pregnant woman refused to answer his questions about herself and her son, then disobeyed Wilmer when he told her "not to leave".

Doesn't sound like grounds for tasering a seven-month pregnant woman.

The suburban Dayton jury apparently agreed with us, deliberating less than three hours before delivering the "Not Guilty" verdict.

Tasers are the new toys for police boys--and boys have to play.

by Mondoreb
Source:
* Jury says Ohio woman who was stunned not guilty
* safetygear