Edwards Affair Put Press In A Tricky Spot

Washington Post Media Notes Column: Allegations Were Open Secret Debated In Every Newsroom But Reported By Almost None

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Howard Kurtz for the Washington Post's Media Notes column.

---

The whispered allegations about John Edwards were an open secret that was debated in every newsroom and reported by almost none.

The story of Edwards's affair with a former campaign aide became so widely known -- what a Slate blogger called "undernews" -- that by last week there seemed little point in the mainstream media gatekeepers' keeping it isolated outside their moat. And yet, even as some national news organizations tried halfheartedly to confirm the tawdry tale, they ignored it in public -- wary of the National Enquirer, of Edwards's dismissal of "tabloid trash," of wading once again into the swamp of sexual scandal without definitive proof.

By early last week, journalists were in the awkward position of refusing to report on explosive allegations that were almost certain to knock the former North Carolina senator out of the Democratic convention. They were in a box of their own making, one that came to feel airtight and uncomfortable.

When critics, especially on the right, accused the media of protecting a Democrat because of liberal bias, journalists were unable to respond, because to do so would be to acknowledge the very thing they were declining to report. At the same time, in an area of financial cutbacks and shrinking staffs, news organizations have fewer reporters to dig into what most considered a less-than-pressing priority.

As the political fallout came to be openly debated in the North Carolina papers, I pursued the matter with my colleague Lois Romano and was struck by Edwards's refusal to talk about whether he had a relationship with Rielle Hunter, his former campaign aide, or to even issue a statement. Edwards's actions did not seem to be those of a man with nothing to hide. I came to believe that we should publish a story. But I don't get paid to make those decisions.

Only Edwards's belated confession Friday to ABC's Bob Woodruff allowed news organizations to jump on what most people already knew.

Those who blithely dismiss a brash supermarket tabloid -- what New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller called the "hold-your-nose quality about the Enquirer" -- had better check the record. The Enquirer's reporting of the O.J. Simpson extravaganza of the '90s was good enough to be cited by the Times itself. In 2001, the tabloid reported both that Hillary Clinton's brother had been paid $400,000 to secure a presidential pardon for a convicted businessman, and that Jesse Jackson had fathered an out-of-wedlock child. In 2003, Rush Limbaugh acknowledged an addiction to painkillers after the Enquirer reported that Florida authorities were looking into his drug use.

The Enquirer's standards aren't my standards, and I still believe that paying sources, as it did in the Edwards case, taints a story. But the paper knows how to conduct an investigation for certain kinds of stories.

It may turn out that the "love child" part of the Enquirer story is wrong and that Edwards is telling the truth about not being the father of Hunter's 5-month-old daughter. But the rest of the media are no longer giving him a pass.

Bill O'Reilly, while skeptical of the story, told his Fox News viewers last Monday: "I do know that if it were Mitt Romney instead of John Edwards, this would be on the front page of the New York Times."

I don't think the party favoritism charge holds up. Yes, the media went hard after two Republican senators, Larry Craig (who pleaded guilty in that bathroom incident) and David Vitter (who admitted calling an escort service). But they also pounced on New York's Democratic then-governor, Eliot Spitzer (whose taste in prostitutes was revealed by the New York Times), and, famously, Bill Clinton (whose Monica Lewinsky mess was disclosed by The Post and hotly pursued by Newsweek). It helps, of course, when there is a law enforcement inquiry that journalists can cite as evidence.

The argument that Edwards is merely a private person who should be left alone doesn't carry much water. He's a two-time presidential candidate, was the party's nominee for vice president four years ago, and was carrying on with the smitten Hunter -- a fledgling filmmaker paid with campaign funds during his White House run. Do the standards change dramatically the day after you drop out?

Some organizations made an effort to confirm the allegations, but this was no full-court press. "There was a certain reluctance by members of the mainstream media to admit they were beaten on a very big story by the Enquirer, so they didn't chase it," says David Perel, the tabloid's editor in chief, who for weeks has been fielding calls from reporters looking into the matter.

As National Review's Byron York wrote last week, journalists believed Perel's publication had the goods but were "waiting for the Enquirer to fully report a story that they wouldn't otherwise report . . . because it's in the Enquirer."

The Elizabeth Edwards factor cannot be underestimated. The enormous public sympathy for a woman who campaigned for her husband, even as she battled an incurable form of cancer, extended to many of the reporters who followed and interviewed her on the trail. The emotional high point of the Edwards campaign came last year, when he and Elizabeth held a news conference to announce that her cancer had returned, but that he would not leave the race.

Slate's Mickey Kaus, the leading online critic of the mainstream media's reticence, wrote that he had "gotten enough emails from anguished and angry members of the MSM to conclude . . . that it's the prime reason for the MSM blackout." But, he wrote, "If a politician whose chief appeal is his self-advertised loyalty to his brave, ill wife cheats on his brave ill wife, what's he good for again?"

As the debate raged online, the most important crack in the wall of silence took place at the Charlotte Observer, North Carolina's largest newspaper. By disclosing that the baby's birth certificate listed no father, the Observer opened the local floodgates for reporting about Edwards's political future just as Barack Obama's team was trying to keep him from spoiling their man's moment at the Democratic National Convention, which begins two weeks from today.

As the pressure built, Edwards continued to stonewall, hustling away from reporters at public appearances. At that point, the mainstream press seemed blind to what was starting to resemble a coverup -- which, in fact, it was, as the former senator has conceded in acknowledging his lies.

The fact that big newspapers, magazines and networks have standards -- that is, they refuse to print every stray rumor just because it's "out there" -- is one of their strengths. But in the latter stages of this case, it made them look clueless. Perhaps there is a middle ground where media outlets can report on a burgeoning controversy without vouching for the underlying allegations, being candid with readers and viewers about what they know and don't know.

In the end, the much-derided MSM were superfluous, their monopoly a faded memory. People have hundreds of ways to obtain information in today's instantaneous media culture, and are capable of reaching their own conclusions about what is reliable and what is not.

One small irony: Early last year, I wrote a column about the behind-the-scenes video that Hunter produced for Edwards's presidential run, a self-absorbed episode in which he said he would campaign "based on who I really am, not based on some plastic Ken doll." After watching the smooth-talking candidate preen for the camera, I questioned whether he was engaged in "carefully choreographed candor." I didn't know how right I was.

[veteran188]

So What?

The vaunted press never touch McSAME''s lies either,

and look at how they went overboard against Clinton,

Who cares it''s time for you right wing clowns to take your bibles and get out of everyone else''s bedroom

[perry552]

Catching the Wrong John: When Are the Media Going to Talk about John McCain''s Infidelity?

There is no such thing as a liberal media!! The mainstream media is own by corporations which means your media is conservative right wing media.

[perry552]

''''Catching the Wrong John: When Are the Media Going to Talk about John McCain''s Infidelity?

If John Edwards'' infidelity is news, and he''s not a candidate for anything, why isn''t John McCain''s?


My first thought upon hearing the "big news" on all the cable stations -- straight from the pages of the nation''s leading investigative newspaper, the National Enquirer -- that John Edwards had been caught with his trousers down, was, "Oh, no, what if this cuts into the story of that little girl who disappeared whose mother hasn''t seemed to figure out that someone is recording her jailhouse telephone conversations and putting them on the news! How will I ever get the news I need tonight?"

[sharon4brett]

John Edwards is not running for office. Why don''t you do a major story on John McCain''s affair with Cindy while he was still married to Carol - then dumping Carol and marrying Cindy within a month or so. He runs on honesty, integrity, and claims to be honorable. What he did in deserting his wife after her accident is far worse than anything John Edwards did. Leave Edwards alone and report on things that will affect our upcoming election. Thank you

[spsg2]

If the Edwards'' campaign staff, who followed him everywhere in 2007, didn''t see him with this women,
how could they confront him. Campaign manager Bonair was really angry why didn''t he notice the big headed fuzzy blonde, with a camera hanging around in 2007? As a matter of fact it was not all Elizabeth who wanted her fired in 2006, Bonair didn''t think she should be part of campaign because her videos weren''t professional enough, and she was paid too much by the PAC for them and she was fired. She complain to a Newsweek reporter in a recent article, how the staff didn''t appreciate her videos.
There was only one question since February 27, was not the right timeline, to be Edwards child, when in
2007 did you see her, no answer, then end of interview.

[spsg2]

eggy1620 you are a jerk.

[spsg2]

The MSM, did the right thing in this matter, because
it was a rumor, and the Enquirer, got it from he said she said, it is possible the women Rielle wanted it
out, because she wanted John Edwards to leave his wife. The women who sold the story, what was her agenda, money from the tabloid. CBS early show has stooped to an all time low, and invited the rat to appear on television to say it wasn''t exactly the right date the affair started who cares, it was in 2006. The question should have when in 2007 did he see her and dates please, if you don''t know, interview over, no information was really given and she probably was lying.

The fact of the matter, it is none of your business, period. Mostly it hurts people because it is personal. He did not go to war and lie as to the reasons why. He did not spend trillons of dollars on a useless war that killed thousands of people, he had *** with a groupie, who begged him to leave his wife and go with her. She tricked him, and got pregnant, and she is approaching 50, had been married ten years, she knows the ropes. Hunter was a port in a storm. I don''t want to know, if he is cheating on his wife, I just want to know if the trade agreements being signed are sending all the jobs over seas, and leaving people in US without jobs.
Leave these tawdy stories to the Enquirer just as you did.

[noloyalisti]

msgtsteve must be one of those right wing wackos who listens to Limp Balls and Coulter (he is advocating violence against the patriotic liberals).

We liberals believe in the rule of law (unlike the Greasy Old Perverts). We just want to try them for their crimes, impeach and imprison. We want them to be shamed for what they have done.

[brianbwb-2009]

"...NOw, tell me again how there isn''''t any media bias toward the libs.
THis is the year that our media truly, truly dies."
Posted by Xlib

OK, I''ll tell you, they still haven''t come to grips with the fact that they helped Bush spread the lies that led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

At most, Edwards lied about something he did that might have created a life, while Bush is responsible for the deaths of more than a million people.

Since the press dodn''t cover either, which is worse?

[vranger]

"What Edwards does behind closed doors does NOT constitute national news."

Of course, when he pursued public office it absolutely is. Infidelity speaks to his capacity for self control, honesty, and loyalty. Those are all qualities I want in an elected official, and I want to know when a candidate is incapable of them so that my vote can go to a deserving candidate.

[xlib]

Hey sam, so FOX, who also covers Republican screw ups and is one station, compares with cbs, nbc, abc, cnn, msnbc, npr and hollywood levels the playing field. Wow, you are the epitome of the double standard. The fact is, this has been covered up by your msm and is now being downplayed. News is news and your media picks and chooses what it wants you leemings to hear.
Are there any stories about your two politicans up before the etics committee for the sweet deals they made in the mortgage crisis?? Nope, don''t see it.
It''s the news that your media does not cover that is the real issue.

[xlib]

For all of you who say "this is personal and no one''s business", does that go for Republicans too??
The issue that you leemings keep ignoring is the the estimated 3-5 million his girlfriend has raked in. Where did that money come from?? If it were a Republican there would be screams of outrage.
This point cannot be ignored even though your media is playing it down and all of you libs are making excuse after excuse.
Face it, the guy is a dog but you love him anyway. Hence, you are all leemings.

[carlylaine]

patriot1243: The problem is not that he has an affair...the problem is -- as Clinton''s problem. He lies about it. At least he went to his wife first. The liars...you guys all get upset because you believe Bush lied...looks like it did to some degree..or was at least ill informed. But when a person lies it does more to destroy than if the person said nothing. Liars cannot be trusted no matter what.

[darkfyreaol]

Mitch6544: I''ll have to agree. This isn''t news. this isn''t journalism. this is snooping into someone''s private life. What Edwards does behind closed doors does NOT constitute national news.

[xlib]

Tricky spot you say!! I guess it was because his face was still well recognized that you couldn''t put the story out without mentioning his party affiliation. Worked for spitzer who many thought was Republican because his party was not mentioned in the article.
On doing some research it seems this story has been out there for a number of months. Face it, this guy is a sleaz, self centered, narcissitc, I could go on. However, he''s a democrat and therefore without fault.
NOw, tell me again how there isn''t any media bias toward the libs.
THis is the year that our media truly, truly dies.

[carlylaine]

OneWorldUSA: You are correct. John Edwards was a wind bag....obviously, the only good thing that came from him was his ****M. Everything that came out of his mouth was S***!

[skeezix06]

Delayed disclosure certainly took an unsightly bump out of Obama''s way, didn''t it. How...convenient.

In the meantime, the media should have had the integrity to report it when they knew about it. People should have had enough integrity to realize that it basically is no one''s business except John and Elizabeth''s; certainly not our''s. And, yes, John should have had enough integrity not to do it.

[oneworldusa]

Edward''s affair didn''t put the press in a tricky spot, it''s loved every second of it because it sells papers and tabloids. Not to me, though.

Who doesn''t like to see an arrogant, egotistical windbag go down?

I wish Eliz would divorce him and kick him out of that 28,000sq ft mansion and leave it all to her kids. That way, the mistress can''t have it.

[patriot12436]

dkhorse1
Have we ever failed to elect an accomplished liar to office ?

[patriot12436]

Personally, i would rather have an adulterer in office than a terrorist sympathyzer or a racist. If Edwards were running it would not effect my opinion about his ability to lead our country. His personal life is no reflection on his abilities to run a country. DNC backed the wrong horse again.