Behind the News, Campaign Desk
Steady Now…
A North Carolina paper covers the Edwards allegation. Carefully.
By Clint Hendler Thu 7 Aug 2008 05:17 PMFor the Charlotte Observer, it began in October, when the National Enquirer published an article suggesting that presidential candidate—and former North Carolina senator—John Edwards was having an affair.
The Enquirer’s story purported to quote crush emails the woman-in-question, Rielle Hunter, had sent to friends. But otherwise the piece was thin. And the tabloid, while enjoying a quiet reputation for being libel-proof, doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the hearts of editors and readers.
Still, the McClatchy-owned Observer, the largest paper in Edwards’s home state, sent Lisa Zagaroli, its Washington reporter, up to New York to make contacts and check around.
“I looked at it as a news tip,” says Rick Thames, the Observer’s editor. “I wasn’t put off by it being in the National Enquirer. I was worried it if it was true.”
Thames felt Zagaroli was making progress. But then Andrew Young, an Edwards campaign aide, stepped forward to claim that he, not his boss, had impregnated Hunter. In Thames eyes, “the story cooled.”
But on July 22nd, the National Enquirer published a luridly written tale asserting that Edwards had joined Hunter and her now some-months-old baby behind closed doors in the Beverly Hills Hilton. After said meeting, the Enquirer reporters wrote that Edwards led them on a Keystone Kops style chase through the stairways, basements, and bathrooms of the hotel.
That ratcheted things up in North Carolina. On July 24, Jim Morrill, a veteran political reporter at the paper, posted an item on his blog linking the Enquirer’s account. Morrill called the Hilton to confirm, as best he could, the substance of the story. But they weren’t talking. Neither were his Edwards contacts.
So the paper asked some high profile political types how the rumor might affect Edwards’s chances of being named as Obama’s vice presidential nominee. The verdict was clear—even in the absence of non-Enquirer proof, this would be damaging, especially if Edwards wouldn’t step forward to deny it.
Even though it was a mere blog post, and even though the framing did not presume the truth of the Enquirer’s account—something Morrill says the paper was keen to avoid—the item was noteworthy as one of the first mentions from the traditional press of the scandal-in-waiting. Meanwhile, the story raged online. Conservative bloggers accused the “MSM” of covering for Edwards.
That’s not how Thames saw it—the love child allegations remained unproven.
“Sometimes people who read news on the web are frustrated by what they see as our sluggishness,” Thames says. “We’re still in the business of verification.”
“He’s forfeited the luxury of not speaking to this, and we’d like him to come forward and address this,” says Thames. “I can’t tell you what’s going on here. He’s usually someone who’s very accessible.”
To that end, when Edwards was scheduled to speak at a Washington AARP event, Zagaroli went to stake him out. She figured there was a good chance he’d exit via a door used by kitchen staff. She was right, and when he did come out the side door, Zagaroli fired off several questions.
“He was very polite. He just said he wasn’t able to get into it, and briskly walked to the car,” Zagaroli said.
The paper and McClatchy’s wire ran that encounter on July 31. On August 1, the Observer followed up with the interesting, but hardly conclusive, revelation that Hunter’s child’s birth certificate, obtained by the paper’s research staff, was missing any father’s name.
The next day, the paper ran a sober editorial laying out what, exactly, they knew and didn’t know about the story. They cautioned against assuming that Edwards silence equaled culpability. And they defended their speed and process, writing that “the truth has been hard to determine.”
“We’re trying to verify the allegation to the extent that we can, but we’re also trying to find concrete fallout from it,” says Morrill.
Today, the Observer ran an article very similar to Morrill’s original post, although this time, the question was whether or not Edwards was likely to be offered a convention speaking slot in wake of the Enquirer’s reporting. In an attempt to get comment, a reporter rang Edwards’s house gate bell.
The article mentioned that the tabloid yesterday published a blurry “spy photo” purporting to be of Edwards and child. And it included comments suggesting that the press’s heretofore quiet treatment of the story won’t last long. As Edwards’s 1998 Senate campaign manager told the paper, “it’s clearly getting ready to bust out.”
CORRECTION (8/8/08): This article originally said the Observer’s 7/8/08 article made no mention of the Enquirer photo, when in fact it did. It also conflated two articles that ran separately on July 31 and August 1. We regret the errors, which have been corrected in the text.
CJR
Dennis Myers
Thu 7 Aug 2008 05:48 PMNowhere in this article is the real journalism issue addressed or even mentioned-- whether this is a story. Since Edwards has been out of public office for a couple of years, it doesn't engage his performance in office. That being so, this is not a matter for journalism. So there are those reporters who will get into the subjective "It reflects on his judgment" business, an increasingly elastic category that lets us report on anything we want.
padikiller
Fri 8 Aug 2008 12:14 AMEdwards is still a candidate for President of the United States - his campaign is merely suspended - he still has tons of money - and he still has committed delegates.
Edwards has been a high-profile Democratic leader who was actively being considered to for the vice presidential nomination.
The "private citizen" crapola doesn't wipe clean. It's just a silly dodge that liberal "professional journalists" can use to pretend like they have some real ethics. If Dan Quayle (wherever he is) had turned up with a love baby, the press would been on him like white on rice.
Edwards certainly wasn't a "private citizen" when he is alleged to have knocked up his Baby Mamma (while simulaneously dragging his dying wife out on the campaign trail.)
TDC
Fri 8 Aug 2008 03:52 PMIts times like this that remind me to relfect on the words of a wise sage whose name is now sadly lost to time:
I started my life in an old, cold run down tenement slum. My father left, he never even married mom. I shared the guilt my mama knew. So afraid that others knew I had no name
This love were contemplating, Is worth the pain of waiting, Well only end up hating, The child we maybe creating
Dennis Myers
Fri 8 Aug 2008 07:55 PMThe previous poster is probably right that if Dan Quayle had a love child, the press would be all over it. And they would be wrong.
TDC
Fri 8 Aug 2008 09:08 PMThe previous poster is probably right that if Dan Quayle had a love child, the press would be all over it. And they would be wrong.
Two words: Strom Thurmond, and he was dead!
Circusboy
Fri 8 Aug 2008 09:52 PMTDC fails to disclose it was Thurmond's daughter herself that disclosed the information to the media. This knowledge was hardly outed by the press.
Padikiller shares the limelight in making a bad point (in more than one post even!) that Edwards suspended his campaign. Although it is true he has ruined any future he has in politics, making Edwards into something he was not (and the media didn't like him when he was running for President) doesn't make him fall any further.
TDC
Fri 8 Aug 2008 11:02 PMCircusboy fails to disclose that Thurmond's daughter only disclosed it to the media after the Charlotte Observer badgered here for over a decade about it.
But its funny when you think about it, all this time the press was criticising The Breck Girl over his $400 haircuts when they should have been looking at that $100,000 Trim he was getting.
padikiller
Sat 9 Aug 2008 10:59 AMJFK had it right...
If you're going to crap all over your family and jeopardize your entire political career just for the sake of exercising your gonads, you should at least make it worthwhile, don't you think?.
I can see JFK hopping off the reservation to bag Marilyn Monroe, not that I condone such philandering. But hey, it was Marilyn Monroe, after all.
But flushing it all away for "Hunter Rielle" or Monica Lewinsky?
The risk/reward curve just doesn't seem to justify such dalliances.
Circusboy
Sun 10 Aug 2008 12:55 PMThe reason I failed to disclose it is I can't find anything about it, TDC. But it still is a poor rickety support for your house-of-cards example...
Circusboy
Sun 10 Aug 2008 05:30 PMWhy Padikiller, aren't you going to say how attractive adultress Cindy McCain is? Or was it just the money McCain was after?