PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
comments
84
options
 
Thursday, February 4, 2010

 

 

On page 222 of his newly-released book, The Politician, which tracks the downfall of John Edwards, former aide Andrew Young recalls how the candidate's entourage braced for a media frenzy in the wake of the National Enquirer's first Rielle Hunter revelation, in October 2007:

"The (Enquirer) accusation and (Edwards') denial rippled through the mainstream media but did not build into a wave. In fact, if you got your news from the big papers or TV networks, you probably didn't know a scandal was rumored...Remarkably, the senator's denial, Rielle's statement, and our effort to keep her away from reporters and photographers dampened interest in the story advanced by the Enquirer and a few other outlets. From mid-October to mid-December, we heard barely a peep from the press."

He was particularly relieved that The New York Times hadn’t peeped; as he notes on page 96, “even in the Internet age, The Times still sets the media agenda, especially where TV network news operations are concerned.”

But in mid-December, the National Enquirer followed up by reporting that Hunter was pregnant with Edwards' child. The Edwards camp squashed that one by claiming publicly that Young, in his role as Edwards' doormat, was actually the father. As Young writes in his book, the whole point was to quash the scandal in advance of the impending Iowa caucuses. (This was around the time when Edwards made the cover of Newsweek; in the article, which highlighted his popularity in Iowa, he vowed: “I’m going to speak the truth.”) Again, everybody braced for a media frenzy. From page 240: "But to our relief, no serious newspaper or TV network picked up the story because they couldn't find a source to confirm it."

Well, that was hardly the sole reason for the media silence. It's clear that major outlets with the requisite investigatory resources simply lacked any appetite to pursue the story. A New York Times editor subsequently told the paper's ombudsman that Edwards-Hunter was "classically not a Times-like story," and top editor Bill Keller said there was a "hold-your-nose quality about the Enquirer." (By contrast, Keller apparently deemed it "Times-like" to insinuate, in a front-page story during the '08 campaign, that John McCain was canoodling with a lobbyist - or, to be more precise, it was "Times-like" to report that McCain's aides were troubled that some might perceive that he was canoodling.)

And while looking down his nose at The Enquirer, Keller failed to credit the tabloid with busting a few big ones in the recent past - such as the '03 story about Rush Limbaugh's pill addiction; and the '01 story about how two convicted felons paid 400 grand to the law firm of Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, in the expectation that Rodham would lobby President Clinton for pardons. Rodham did it. When the mainstream media picked up the Enquirer story, Clinton - who had pardoned one of the felons and commuted the sentence of the other - insisted that his brother-in-law give the money back. (The Enquirer is a bit like Ryan Howard. It whiffs a lot, but when it does connect...yeesh, it goes yard.)

Anyway, after the Edwards dust had finally settled, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz remarked on the mainstream media's "great reluctance" to pursue the scandal; in his words, "everybody in America knew about this before CNN and The New York Times and The Washington Post got into the game."

Andrew Young knew darn well that this was a newsworthy story; as he observed on page 221, the issue was public hypocrisy: "(Edwards) had sold himself to the American public as a devoted husband and father and family man who talked about his faith in order to appeal to Christian voters." Not to mention the fact that Edwards at the time was a major player in the '08 contest, and that, if he had somehow squirmed his way onto the '08 ticket, his hypocrisy may well have imperiled the Democratic party in one of its rare moments of ascent.

Word is, The Enquirer editors have submitted their Edwards scandal coverage for a Pulitzer this spring. Good luck with that. But good for them.
 

 

Posted by Dick Polman @ 2:27 PM  Permalink | 84 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:36 PM, 02/04/2010
    I must agree wholly with Polman's assessment. I was furious with the NYT that it put the McCain non-story on page one, when it didn't have sources to confirm the truth. And while I usually take up for what is referred to as mainstream media (since that is my educational training), that was one time I was just disgusted. I believe the reason the NYT ran the McCain piece was because a rival pub was about to publish ahead of them. Apparently a NYT investigative team had been working on the story for several month, but had not been able to uncover reliable sources. It was just poor journalism, and I've said so on this blog before. However, I have the same sense of holding my nose where the National Enquirer is concerned. Years ago, I used to read for the blind as a volunteer, and I got assigned the Enquirer. Truly, its was so trashy. I've never gotten over that.
    NigeltheMastiff
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:06 PM, 02/04/2010
    As 60 Minutes/Dan Rather and the NYT prove, the leftist media will do anything to promote and protect democrats.
    CD75
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:35 PM, 02/04/2010
    As Fox News and James O'Keefe prove, the rightist media will lie and commit felonies to harm the Democrats.
    HandNik
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:46 PM, 02/04/2010
    GET READY for SPIN BORO MIKE's announcement that the market at 9,999.99 is below 10,000, because of Obama's policies. Get ready for it!!
    Talvenada
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:53 PM, 02/04/2010
    Only ONE Conse 'Pub commented that he doesn't want Obama impeached, and the rest were silent. Hard to believe, Harry. .........................We have no hardcore 'Pubs on this site? None are in the 39% for the impeachment, or none are in the 29% in the not sure of impeachment? We have only the other 32%, amazing!!
    Talvenada
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:01 PM, 02/04/2010
    I think the charge of the media protecting liberal Democrats is now in the category of, to borrow a phrase, "settled science".
    jmc
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:02 PM, 02/04/2010
    WAD: And it is worldwide!! Obama will ruin the entire world, because of his policies!! That, no doubt, is your thinking?
    Talvenada
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:03 PM, 02/04/2010
    Why would "the leftist media" protect John Edwards? His chances of becoming prez were, with HRC and BO sucking up all the oxygen, about 5% (generously). They were protecting Elizabeth Edwards. Simple as that. Liberals who hyperventilate about how close he was to being the nominee are just being hyperbolic--he was never even close. If he has been, the story would have been dropped on him in the MSM in October.
    CutterMcCool
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:19 PM, 02/04/2010
    Talvenada:"We have no Hardcore" Hardcore. Now that's something you know about.No?
    billreilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:23 PM, 02/04/2010
    BILLO: You don't want Obama impeached? Or you'd surely have said so.
    Talvenada
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:24 PM, 02/04/2010
    jmc, I respectfully disagree with you. I read a number of newspapers every day, and I see MSM skewering certain liberals and certain conservatives. Jack Cafferty at CNN is pretty evenhanded in his criticism of both sides. Maureen Dowd, while philosophically liberal, never hesitates to criticize Obama. They aren't such strict adherents to one view that they fail to critique decisions and actions they disagree with. Routinely every four years, journalism students are required to keep track of coverage, and to see if the media gives each side fairly equal time. And every four years the results are similar (the media does). And don't forget, the news section is very different from the op/ed pages, where editorial boards and columnists are supposed to have an opinion and to take sides. Many newspapers have both sides represented on these pages. I really don't think the right has been very fair in their assessment of media. And from the stories I've seen from Fox News, that outlet is shamelessly biased, especially in their headlines.
    NigeltheMastiff
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:28 PM, 02/04/2010
    WAD: Nice rant. The dropping markets are worldwide, and YOU blame Obama. I didn't mention anybody else you did, and then knocked me for words you put in my mouth. If you ever decide to pick a side, you'd make a great Conse 'Pub!!
    Talvenada


View comments: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  | 
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.