If it’s news now that he admits it, then it’s news.
Since he admits it, it was true.
Since it was true and it was news, you have no excuse. You got beat.
If the National Enquirer sucks, then you got beat by a news outlet that sucks.
That means you suck worse.
Thanks for listening.
Love and kisses,
P.S. Even the erratic Tim Rutten agrees (h/t to the “portly pirate”):
From the start, the Edwards scandal has belonged entirely to the alternative and new media. The tabloid National Enquirer has done all the significant reporting on it — reporting that turns out to be largely correct — and bloggers and online commentators have refused to let the story sputter into oblivion.
What’s more, Rutten confirms that the L.A. Times got beat because it didn’t care:
As pressure mounted on major newspapers to take some aspect of the unfolding scandal into account, editors and ombudsmen issued statements saying it would be unfair to publish anything until the Enquirer’s stories had been “confirmed.”
Well, there’s confirming and then there’s confirming. One sort occurs when an editor mutters, “Find somebody and have them make a few calls.” Then there’s the sort that comes when that editor summons an investigative reporter with a heart like ice and a mind like Torquemada’s and says, “Follow this wherever it goes and peel this guy like an onion.”
Suffice to say that the follow-up of the Enquirer’s story fell into the former category in too many newsrooms, including that of The Times.
Is the latter category reserved for Republicans? Too often it appears that it is. See DRJ’s post below for an example of the differential treatment accorded John Edwards and John McCain.