National Enquirer Editor Pretty Much Admits They're Timing Roll-Out of Edwards Story to Coincide With Democratic Convention

And if this winds up hurting Obama more than it otherwise might have, the MSM can blame itself. There is no way an MSM outlet of medium size or larger could fail to confirm and report on this story within a week, were they to dedicate to it even a handful of good reporters. But they're deliberately avoiding that -- they know damn well what reporters would find -- and so they leave their precious Democratic Party in the hands of the Enquirer, which of course wants maximum sales and profits from their scoop.

With the Democratic National Convention in Denver just two weeks away... details of that timetable appear to be crystallizing. "It took seven months to go from the December story to the [Beverly Hilton] meeting....But if it happens to be a happy coincidence—if the story just happens to be breaking around that time, in terms of maximum exposure—" he told the National Review before cutting himself off mid-sentence.

In a telltale moment, Democratic officials are acting more quickly on this than the supposedly-objective MSM. It's the Democrats who are capable of admitting the obvious, whereas the MSM are exposed as the most guileless, naive True Believers and Kool-Aid drinkers:

If Edwards fails to clear up the story in short order, he risks party officials deciding not to have him speak or, if they do, creating a distraction from a week focused on Barack Obama accepting the nomination.

"If there is not an explanation that's satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is 'no,' he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention," said Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chair.

So admitted, overt partisan political operatives are demanding more answers from Edwards than the supposedly nonpartisan press.

Ann Coulter snarks:

The mainstream media's reaction to the National Enquirer's reports on John Edwards' "love child" scandal has been reminiscent of the Soviet press. Edwards' name has simply been completely whitewashed out of the news. Say, why isn't anyone talking about John Edwards for vice president anymore? No, seriously –- hey! Why are we going to a commercial break?

I suspect that if I tried to look up coverage of the Democratic primaries in Nexis news archives, Edwards' name will have disappeared from the debates. By next week, Edwards won't have been John Kerry's running mate in 2004.

Do you know what this means? At this precise moment in time, I could call Edwards a name that would send me to rehab, and the media wouldn't be able to report it!

A Washington Post reporter defended the total blackout on the National Enquirer's John Edwards' love child story, telling the Times of London: "Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage." This was the perfect guy to talk to because if there's one thing they're careful about in London, it's tabloid excess.

Isn't there some level of coverage between "wall-to-wall" and "double-secret probation, delta-force level total news blackout" when it comes to a sex scandal involving a current Democratic vice presidential and Cabinet prospect?

Hey, what sort of "elected official" was Ted Haggard again? He was the Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year. Then he suddenly became the Pope of the Protestants. And yet, despite the fact that Haggard was not an "elected official," the Post gave that story wall-to-wall coverage. And what sort of "elected officials" were Mel Gibson, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett?

It seems to me that Edwards will either suddenly discover his schedule does not permit him to attend the DNC, or... the DNC will quietly instruct Edwards to discover his schedule does not permit him to attend the DNC.

In that case -- with Edwards glaringly missing from the convention -- will the MSM even then mention the possible reasons for his absence? Will they even bring themselves to allude to "rumors swirling" around Edwards, or continue blacking it out entirely?

I think the former.

Incidentally, I read that Jay Leno had a good crack about this. Paraphrased--

"The National Enquirer is reporting that John Edwards paid Rielle Hunter $15,000 a month to stay quiet about their affair. Makes you wonder what he's paying the mainstream media."

Pathetically, of course, he's not paying them a nickel. This is just their idea of "good journalism."

As the convention approaches, we might actually see the liberal press begin reporting on the story, as "Protect Barack" becomes more imperative than "Protect Elizabeth."

posted by Ace at 03:40 PM

| Access Comments