Patterico's Pontifications

7/24/2008

Edwards’s Affair: Why It’s Not News

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:43 am



Jack Shafer:

But if Edwards had an affair and lied about it, shouldn’t he suffer scrutiny akin to that of Craig? At least three-dozen daily newspapers in the United States published the Craig news the day after the Roll Call scoop, according to Nexis, but this morning not a single U.S. daily mentioned the Enquirer piece.

Now, as I’ve already said, the two stories aren’t completely analogous.

Indeed, for at least two reasons.

First, what Craig did was considered a crime. As Shafer says, “the police blotter is always news.”

Second, Craig is a Rethuglican, while Edwards is a progressive Democrat. Republicans always claim to be Upstanding in Every Stage of Their Lives — and even if they don’t, they belong to a party where some do, which is almost the same thing. Thus, any morally bad behavior by a Republican is news, Because of the Hypocrisy.

By contrast, Edwards never claimed to be Mr. Moral. Except, of course, when he specifically denied this exact affair. Uh . . . anyway, as I was saying . . . and so, Democrats, like, don’t claim to be moral. So it’s OK for them to cheat on their wives who have cancer.

I hope this list of differences has helped.

82 Responses to “Edwards’s Affair: Why It’s Not News”

  1. Patterico,

    This should also be filed under Media Bias if not Media lying when they say they’re not biased and in the tank for the Democrat party.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  2. The fun part of the story was his running from the media and locking himself in a bathroom. This normally improves the value of a story.

    Alta Bob (a6d8ba)

  3. So it’s OK for them to cheat on their wives who have cancer.

    It’s apparently okay for Democrats to cheat on their wives who don’t have cancer

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  4. It is apparently OK for Democrats to leave people in submerged cars to die, too.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  5. And to drive under the influence. (Hey, a public apology and “rehab” would get any of the rest of us out of a DUI, wouldn’t it?)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  6. I feel really bad for Elizabeth Edwards. I hope she takes him to the cleaners.

    JD (75f5c3)

  7. Shafer’s article was disappointing, because he quickly slurred over the most obvious difference — that Craig was arrested and went to trial. As an attorney, you ought to appreciate the huge difference that makes.

    But the Enquirer story is, AFAIK, unconfirmed. There was no arrest, and no photographs have been published. There is simply no independent evidence that rises anywhere near the level of the indisputable fact that Craig was arrested and pled guilty. So the caution of the press in this instance is well-merited. Although I’m often critical of my fellow journos, this is far from a clear-cut case of bias. There are much better examples of *cough* (Obama) *cough* bias.

    Bradley J Fikes (0ea407)

  8. You left out an important reason.

    Nobody threatened to slander and boycott media sources who reported Craig’s misadventure. When your reader- and viewer-ship is dwindling to a handful of left-wing fascists, you have to take their threats very seriously.

    Never assume Orwellian reasoning when simple cowardice suffices to explain.

    Glen Wishard (02562c)

  9. Were it not for the fact that Elizabeth is well-liked and ill, this scandal probably wouldn’t hurt JE much. Jesse Jackson survived his love-child scandal. (Can anyone name JJ’s spouse off the top of their head?) WJC’s popularity suffered little from his dalliances; some actually were angry at _HRC_ over them.

    BJF’s point is very good: where are the photos? The Enquirer says the basement chase went on for some time, with several witnesses and at least one photographer. There would have to be photos, I think, if the story is true.

    gp (72be5d)

  10. It is practically required to have an affair in order to be a leading Democrat.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  11. Re: the photos…

    I’ve heard suggestions that there may be photos but they aren’t good photos, therefore not published/posted. If the only shots they could get were a blurry face, some guy running, or the back of a (beautifully coiffed, I’m sure) head, I’m not sure how much value the photos could add. Other than, “yeah, we were there and clicked a shutter”.

    I'm Geekier (d915db)

  12. there’s quite a difference between a senator from the other side of the country getting a little discreet side action, and a senator in a public men’s room broadcasting his willingness to blow whatever swinging dick was in the next stall. it wasn’t the infidelity or even the gayness that made the craig story special, barney frank doesn’t get frontpage ink when he goes out on a date. pre-craig, nobody knew that if you’re in the right place at the right time, you can get a bj from a senator without even a proper introduction first.

    assistant devil's advocate (c87740)

  13. So that explains the difference between Edwards and Newt Gingrich.

    PrestoPundit (ff5e16)

  14. barney frank doesn’t get frontpage ink when he goes out on a date.

    He sure didn’t get any “ink” when that male hooker was found running a bisexual prostitution ring out of his DC apartment.

    Amazingly enough, he is still being elected by his Democratic constituents.

    Care to try a case where a Democrat was actually punished for his adulterous actions? Or do those not exist?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  15. yo, drumwaster!

    eliot spitzer (c87740)

  16. This headline of this thread should read: “Why Affairs Aren’t News”

    The body should read “Because nobody with half a brain gives a shit”.

    Leviticus (00be72)

  17. How’s jail life for all those money laundering and hiring prostitutes?

    Oh, wait, you mean all you had to do was resign from office?

    Never mind.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  18. The body should read “Because nobody with half a brain gives a shit”.

    Continuing…

    “…when Democrats are the ones violating their marriage sacraments.”

    Hypocrisy, thy political affiliation is Democrat.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  19. If John Edwards was out there trying to make life difficult for spouses who cheat on their wives, by say, treating them as second-class citizens, then his situation would be more comparable to Craig’s.

    There’s no question that Edwards has been a fantastically successful husband and father for many years. He’s obviously worked very hard at it. Even if the absolute worst version of this story is true, it’s simply tragic — for him as well as for everyone in his family. He clearly wants, and tries, to be a dedicated family man. It’s sad for him, because he’s betraying himself, too.

    That said, I never condemned Craig’s alleged “crime” and thought he was treated terribly by the media. I do think the media isn’t kicking Edwards around because they like him, and disliked Craig.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  20. Not Newsworthy: Dumbocrat politician cheating on wife.

    Newsworthy: Dumbocrat politician not using taxpayer money to bribe mistress into silence.

    Actual (f3a01c)

  21. I think I’m with Bradley on this one, believe it or not.

    Right now Edwards is a private citizen. He’s not a public office holder, and he’s not a candidate for anything.

    Craig was arrested, Vitter’s name came out in a criminal investigation, etc.

    The Enquirer is the only source for what happened in the Beverly Hills hotel, and so far they haven’t put up any pictures or confirmed with an on the record source that the woman was in the hotel.

    What should other news outlets report? That the Enquirer is reporting blah blah blah …. without any independent reporting on their part? It may be that one or more news outlets has assigned reporters to try and run down this story. Or maybe not. Under the current circumstances I think its a fair news judgment to not pursue this story until Edwards is back in the spotlight as a candidate or a cabinet pick.

    WLS (02df99)

  22. Let’s compare him to Mark Foley, then. Mark Foley wasn’t arrested, was not charged with a crime, and engaged in private behavior.

    I say there is a double standard for heterosexuals.

    MayBee (201644)

  23. I’m not sure the Craig stories are the best comparative.

    What about the Feruary 2008 McCain stories started by the NY Times that implied he was having an affair with that lobbyist?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    jim2 (a9ab88)

  24. Now let’s see he denied the affair in 2007 right?
    Is there any proof or criminal charges brought up here?
    This is being compared to Larry Craig…… Why?

    I do like the first part of this post:

    “Edwards’s Affair: Why It’s Not News”

    What follows, including most of these comments is quite a bit of whinnying.

    Oiram (983921)

  25. Edwards could have been the nominee of the Cheat Party and it appears he lied about cheating on his sick wife. That’s a heck of a “What If” story regardless of the less-than-perfect sourcing. You guys can make all sorts of excuses for the media ignoring the story as “News” but the media doesn’t leave an interesting angle like that lying around unless they have a stake in ignoring it.

    spongeworthy (9b4e06)

  26. Exactly, spongeworthy. For heaven’s sake, A-Rod’s cheating is news. Madonna’s cheating is news. Not Edwards’s?

    MayBee (201644)

  27. What WLS #21 said.

    I’ll just add that although Edwards may still be a “public figure”, I doubt that Rielle Hunter is, and the baby certainly is not.

    Leaving aside the law, labeling a baby with bastardy is something only a bastard does.

    nk (a4be1f)

  28. Leaving aside the law, labeling a baby with bastardy is something only a bastard does.

    What do we call the person that allows a married man with children (Andrew Young) to publicly claim responsibility for his child so that he won’t be politically embarrassed?

    MayBee (201644)

  29. “There’s no question that Edwards has been a fantastically successful husband…”

    If the Rielle Hunter story is true, then this obviously is not.

    Dana (b4a26c)

  30. MayBee,

    I’m sorry, I don’t know the Andrew Young story.

    I was making a different point. If the media goes after Edwards they are necessarily going after the baby. They should think about that and likely everyone except Hillary’s buddy at the National Enquirer is.

    nk (a4be1f)

  31. Oh, so now it’s a Hillary-planted story?

    This just keeps getting better…

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  32. As others have mentioned, Edwards still has 200+ unreleased delegates come the floor vote at the convention. He is in a strong position to do something if something is to be done. If he swung to Hillary, for example, wouldn’t it put her over? Or if Obama messes up and sufferes a superdelegate defection, wouldn’t he have the power to put things back in his camp?

    luagha (5cbe06)

  33. nk- Andrew Young is the former Edwards campaign staffer who has claimed paternity for the baby. Young is married with children.

    The child exists, it isn’t being “gone after”. It has a mother and a married father, whomever the father might actually be. It was the parents that put him in the situation, and that will be much more difficult for the child to deal with than whether some bloggers discussed it.

    MayBee (201644)

  34. I mean, when we criticize Obama, that might hurt his children too.

    MayBee (201644)

  35. Do try to keep up, Timewaster. And be nice to Edwards. He is the best lawyer you could possibly hire to sue the surgeon who transplanted your anus where your mouth should be.

    nk (a4be1f)

  36. Oh, this is hilarious. Where’s my popcorn?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  37. May Bee #34,

    I’m sorry, but I still insist. Sure, so many people already know about the baby being out of wedlock. It is a very decent and ethical thing for the media to refrain from letting a lot more people know.

    nk (a4be1f)

  38. decent and ethical thing for the media

    The only analogy I can come up with is “honest and law-abiding thing for the Russian Mafia”.

    You are speaking about the National Enquirer, and blaming it on Hillary, after all.

    (Because Hillary blackmailed Edwards into being in that hotel bathroom, didn’t she?)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  39. If we limit the discussion to the behavior of the media, these comments are salient:

    For heaven’s sake, A-Rod’s cheating is news. Madonna’s cheating is news. Not Edwards’s?

    and

    the media doesn’t leave an interesting angle like that lying around unless they have a stake in ignoring it.

    Exactly right.

    quasimodo (edc74e)

  40. Timewaster,

    On another thread you said it was ok for a mother to smother her baby to death. Here, you say a baby’s bastardy should be front page news in order to embarass somebody who is no longer a part of the political scene. Can you please try PeptoBismol for your verbal diarrhea?

    nk (a4be1f)

  41. But candid shots of Lindsey Lohan’s beaver are newsworthy? Not to mention everything that Paris Hilton and the rest of the Hollywood skank elite are rumored to be doing? It is a pity that Mrs. Breck Girl is suffering, but she enables and defends the vain, pompous ass’s behavior.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  42. This is a tough one.

    Edwards is clearly a public figure, but he isn’t an officeholder and isn’t campaigning–he’s a private citizen who hasn’t broken the law.

    So I start out tending towards the “leave him alone” position expressed by BJF #7 and others.

    On the other hand, Edwards is still very much a player. If it’s correct that he has pledged delegates at the upcoming convention (#33), this is indisputable. The Enq. says that Edwards was in L.A. to attend a press event with Mayor Villaraigosa on homelessness. (Er… maybe not the best company to be keeping?)

    “Why isn’t John Edwards among Obama’s Veep finalists?” seems like a pretty Meet-the-Pressy sort of question. No honest response is possible without referring to Rielle. So insiders get to whisper the real answer among themselves, and the sheeple should be satisfied with pap?

    That doesn’t have the ring of high-minded journalistic ethics at work.

    As with Clinton and many others, if this is a tragedy, it’s one that the players have brought on themselves.

    Edwards shouldn’t expect the press to protect him from himself. If he does, the press should decline, and report the news. Sadly, this is news.

    AMac (c822c9)

  43. We can go back to the legalities, if you like. Do you think that if that baby’s guardian ad litem brought a lawsuit for subjecting the babu to public humiliation and ridicule he would lose?

    nk (a4be1f)

  44. Not *babu*. *baby*

    nk (a4be1f)

  45. On another thread you said it was ok for a mother to smother her baby to death.

    No, what I said was that I was not in the least surprised to see your sympathies lie with the murderer who was trying to kill her and her baby.

    It was the others who found fault with your lack of human emotion.

    I’m the one that wasn’t surprised at that lack.

    Here, you say a baby’s bastardy should be front page news in order to embarass somebody who is no longer a part of the political scene.

    “No Longer part of the political scene”?

    Bullshit. He is a man who, even after losing his own Presidential run, is was being looked at as the potential VP candidate for the Obamessiah, with several hundred delegates available to him at the convention which still has yet to occur (as in “the future”). Beyond that, he was the VP candidate for the most recent Presidential election, and a former United States Senator, to boot.

    No matter how you look at it, he’s still a celebrity of high status than Kathy Griffin (and she has her own reality series!) and more political relevance than Bill Clinton, yet if Bill got caught again, it would be all over the news, even though he is “a private citizen who can never run for office again”.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  46. Do you think that if that baby’s guardian ad litem brought a lawsuit for subjecting the babu to public humiliation and ridicule he would lose?

    I’d voter in favor of the defendant, because the story isn’t about the baby, it’s about the politician.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  47. I guess “human emotion” means smothering a baby to save your life and demeaning a baby to publicly humiliate a possible political opponent. Cool.

    nk (a4be1f)

  48. Which is why you don’t have any – you don’t even know what they are.

    Even cooler.

    Who are you going to vote for again?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  49. In any case, this is not about me and Timewaster. The question was, “Why is only the National Enquirer covering this and not the rest of the media?” and my answer is, “Out of simple decency”.

    nk (a4be1f)

  50. i never promised you there wouldn’t be collateral damage in the culture war.

    assistant devil's advocate (48ea94)

  51. “Demaning a baby”? It’s a friggin’ baby, it doesn’t know enough to be demeaned. Take this from a real accomplished dad: If you point at a baby and laugh? The baby will smile and clap it’s hands. They don’t know from humiliation.

    They wear diapers. Are you getting this?

    spongeworthy (9b4e06)

  52. The sad part is that many of us don’t care because this type of behavior is so expected!
    News would be that JE was being cannonized by the Pope.
    Now, THAT would be news!

    Another Drew (758608)

  53. Canonized by the Pope = news

    Cannonized, I think that comes about as a result of his behavior…

    AMac (c822c9)

  54. There’s still a stigma, spongeworthy. And I think it’s a decent thing not to stigmatize the child or the mother no matter who the father is.

    nk (a4be1f)

  55. But it’s a stigma to have a parent that does any kind of idiocy. Yet people who do the wrong (not necessarily illegal) thing are mentioned in the news everyday.

    The standard to keep something out of the news simply cannot be that a child may be embarrassed by his parent’s actions.

    MayBee (201644)

  56. “He is a man… with several hundred delegates available to him at the convention”

    – Drumwaster

    Actually, Edwards has 62 delegates. Use the Google.

    Leviticus (c16922)

  57. Guess you can’t be president.

    Leviticus (c16922)

  58. NK, The National Enquirer NEVER HAD ANY SIMPLE DECENCY.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  59. Guess you can’t be president.

    Don’t want to. Who would willingly seek out those kinds of headaches?

    If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read: PRESIDENT CAN’T SWIM. — Lyndon B. Johnson

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  60. If this isn’t a story, why did the Tribune hire contract lawyers to persue Jim Ryan’s closed divorce records?

    You think Ryan’s kids were stigmatized by that, nk? And that story was hardly one that fell into the Tribune’s lap. They had to go to court, presumably hiring contract lawyers, to make that happen while at the same time they couldn’t spare $10 cab fare to send a reporter to Obama’s church. You know, the church who’s pastor used a phrase that Obama copied for the title of his book.

    Bel Aire (2fd7f7)

  61. To me, the situation is more analogous to Newt Gingrich. He has taken endless crap for many years about serving his wife with divorce papers while she was hospitalized for cancer (which I agree is tacky at best). Edwards apparently doesn’t even have the decency to ask for a divorce.

    The main reason there’s no corroborating evidence from the MSM is that they haven’t bothered to look for it. The Enquirer broke the story of Rush Limbaugh’s pill problem and the networks and newspapers were all over that within hours. The Enquirer was first with several aspects of the OJ case that also proved to be true. So I don’t dismiss the story out of hand just because it’s from a tabloid. I would like to see more proof, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for the MSM to dig it up for me.

    doppelganglander (1be0df)

  62. Kausfiles weighs in at Slate: Edwards and the Agony of the MSM.

    AMac (c822c9)

  63. Sorry, got my Romney and my Edwards delegates mixed up.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  64. Oooh, good point, Bel Aire.

    MayBee (201644)

  65. It is bad if it reflect bad on a Democrat. How can you racists not understand that?!

    Racists.

    JD (75f5c3)

  66. “The fun part of the story was his running from the media and locking himself in a bathroom.”

    Larry Craig – wide stance in the bathroom
    Edwards – tap dance to the bathroom

    Folks, you don’t need to go to the Craig item – The better analogy is the NYTimes failed attempt to trashmouth McCain in Feb. So use the New York Times “McCain standard” applied in their Feb hit piece: someone, somewhere had a whispering suspicion about something a Republican did, and that makes it ‘news’, even if it is unfounded, anonymous and in the end baseless garbage.

    In this case, we have ‘unconfirmed’, even though NE seems to have done enough homework to actually show that the story is, um … *true*, which is likely the best marker of good vs bad journalism.

    The Enquirer piece shows higher journalistic standards than NYT did in Feb. Damning with faint praise but there it is.

    Travis Monitor (483b36)

  67. The Enquirer piece shows higher journalistic standards than NYT did in Feb.

    Really?

    How about we not compare the Enquirer piece – which has ZERO substantiation – with the NYT’s outing of Eliot Spitzer. They nailed him with receipts, eyewitnesses, wiretaps and emails.

    steve (94d266)

  68. 42: I declare any and all naked photos of Lindsay Lohan to be newsworthy. Information wants to be free!

    gp (72be5d)

  69. steve,

    Jon Fine of Business Week thinks there are 5 reasons the Edwards’ story isn’t making it into the mainstream. Basically, Fine says Edwards isn’t a major political player and the MSM likes Elizabeth.

    DRJ (cb68f2)

  70. Hai guys. Remember when the press ignored the Eliot Spitzer affair cuz they luv democrats? And remember when they went 24/7 on the National Enquirer story about Bush and Condi having an affair cuz tehy hate Republicans?

    Smedley (521ca5)

  71. I would hazard a guess that the allegations against Edwards are true. Look at it from the National Enquirer’s perspective: Would you libel a well-connected trial lawyer who has built a fortune shaking down doctors and their insurers? They must have reason to believe this story is pretty damn solid.

    JVW (6a7c34)

  72. They must have reason to believe this story is pretty damn solid.

    What makes this story “solid?”

    “At 2:40 a.m. Tuesday, Edwards left the hotel and was greeted by several Enquirer reporters.”

    And not one of them thought the moment should be saved for posterity. He goes into the hotel ALONE, and re-emerges with his alleged lover where “several reporters” are milling about. The couple then returns to the hotel together… and no pics????

    steve (096a77)

  73. Once Jon Stewart uses it, then it’ll hit the respectable media.

    gp (ea9df7)

  74. so NK you are saying if a public figure cheats and gets a girl knocked up the press should lay off the story?

    Comment by nk — 7/24/2008 @ 10:57 am

    chas (12a229)

  75. i was wondering the same thing as #75. what if dick cheney knocked up miley cyrus? wouldn’t that be newsworthy enough to throw the baby’s feelings and reputation under the bus?

    assistant devil's advocate (8d9f9e)

  76. Interesting update to story in that reporters of National Enquirer involved in covering the Breck Girl’s late night rendezvous have filed a criminal complaint against hotel security. It seems the tabloid men were registered guests and Edwards was not and yet the reporters were treated wrongly as security bent over backwards for the Silk Pony. Mr Two Americas is looking a big peaked at the paper’s website. So will the great I-can-channel-dead-kids Edwards speak truthfully as a witness to the whole affair on cross examination or will he take the fifth? Is it not a bit suspicious that he would be visiting at such a late hour? Would be lovely to see whether the Edward’s and child’s DNA are a match or if the other dude taking responsibility is the real dad or just covering for Saint John.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  77. Fox is saying the hotel security guard that escorted Edwards out confirms the Enquirer account.

    jim2 (a9ab88)

  78. Kaus has word that L.A. Times is not allowing bloggers to blog about it,

    “LAT Gags Blogs: In a move that has apparently stirred up some internal discontent, the Los Angeles Times has banned its bloggers , including political bloggers, from mentioning the Edwards/Rielle Hunter story. Even bloggers who want to mention the story in order to make a skeptical we-don’t-trust-the-Enquirer point are forbidden from doing so. Kausfiles has obtained a copy of the email Times bloggers received from editor Tony Pierce.”

    http://www.slate.com/id/2195914/#latedict

    I don’t believe the LAT to be so noble that they won’t run with an unsubstantiated story (see McCain’s ‘affair‘ front page…) but its always amusing to note when its a politician with a -D after his name, the opportunities to speculate and suppose are deftly ignored (or in this case, forbidden) because that would just be gossip.

    It smells of an obvious bias…perhaps even… censorship.

    Except that we know the LAT does not practice these…. in any way, shape or form.

    Dana (b4a26c)

  79. Not for nothing but FoxNews has the story now, having interviewed the hotel guard… (Found out over at Ace’s.) Link

    Liberals will say, “Bah, what else can you expect from FauxNews?”

    What else can you expect from liberals?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  80. I have changed my earlier opinion after being considering the media-gone-wild coverage of the non-story about McCain’s non-scandal-but-it-looks-improper-to-anonymous-sources relationship with a female lobbyist. I can’t think of any convincing explanation other than partisan bias for hushing up about Edwards and contriving a story about McCain. The double standard reeks.

    Bradley J. Fikes (a18ddc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1338 secs.