But, apparently, hardly anyone in the MSM believed it when the John Edwards love child allegations came forth on July 22. Tony Pierce, the LAT’s blog editor, wrote to his bloggers: “Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.”
Maybe the response instead should have been to use the Enquirer story as a tip for further reporting, as Rick James, the Charlotte Observer’s editor, did. It’s a mixed bag in this journalism world of ours, with varying priorities—to the public, to the watchdog mentality, to verification. But individual priorities may even be better met with interaction between the strata.
Ms. Kim wrote :
Though technically a private individual"...
padikiller schools:
Er... NO....
"Technically" Edwards is a candidate for President of the United States. He merely "suspended" his campaign and he has not released his delegates or donated his war chest.
Ms. Kim wrote :
"As someone in the CJR office put it, would we care if Steve Jobs had an extramarital affair?"
padikiller responds
The question the self-proclaimed "professional journalists" of the MSM should be asking themselves, is "what would we do if we thought George Allen had a baby mamma and was lying about it?"
(HINT) The MSM would be hopping all over Allen like white on rice.
Ms. Kim wrote :
Maybe the response instead should have been to use the Enquirer story as a tip for further reporting,
padikiller waxes sarcastic:
Jeez! You think?...
You mean actually like investigate allegations against a Democrat?...
You're not going to last long in the business, Ms. Kim...
But shine on, you crazy diamond!...
And in your next story, you might want to address the allegation that the MSM is just teeny, tiny, tad bit biased in its news coverage.
Posted by padikiller on Fri 8 Aug 2008 at 07:01 PM
Your story about John Edwards shows that you thinkj the word "media" refers to a singular body. But "media" is a plural and includes radio, TV, newspapers, and the Internet.
Let's stop this singularity.
Posted by Stephen G. Esrati on Fri 8 Aug 2008 at 08:06 PM
Re: Mr. Esrati's complaint. We may not like it, but the language evolves and the ship has sailed on “media” singular and plural. The American Heritage Book of English Usage: “People also use ‘media’ with the definite article as a collective term to refer not to the forms of communication themselves so much as the communities and institutions behind them. In this sense, the media means something like “the press.” Like other collective nouns, it may take a singular or plural verb depending on the intended meaning. If the point is to emphasize the multifaceted nature of the press, a plural verb may be more appropriate… Quite frequently, however, media stands as a singular noun for the aggregate of journalists and broadcasters… This development of a singular media parallels that of more established words such as data and agenda, which are also Latin plurals that have acquired a singular meaning.”
Posted by Dennis Myers on Sat 9 Aug 2008 at 01:45 AM
Re: Mr. Esrati's complaint. We may not like it, but the language evolves and the ship has sailed on “media” singular and plural. The American Heritage Book of English Usage: “People also use ‘media’ with the definite article as a collective term to refer not to the forms of communication themselves so much as the communities and institutions behind them. In this sense, the media means something like “the press.” Like other collective nouns, it may take a singular or plural verb depending on the intended meaning. If the point is to emphasize the multifaceted nature of the press, a plural verb may be more appropriate… Quite frequently, however, media stands as a singular noun for the aggregate of journalists and broadcasters… This development of a singular media parallels that of more established words such as data and agenda, which are also Latin plurals that have acquired a singular meaning.”
Posted by Dennis Myers on Sat 9 Aug 2008 at 01:47 AM
However bizarro it feels to defend the National Enquirer here, it's worth noting that the tabloid first reported on Edwards' fling with Hunter in October 2007 -- not July 22, 2008, as your commentary suggests.
The MSM has had more than ample time to take up the story, but until the days following Edwards' visit to Beverly Hills, declined to do so.
Why? Well, it's said it's been said the MSM wanted to "protect" Elizabeth Edwards, whose multiple bouts with cancer helped make her off-limits to media criticism. Which is exactly how she was allowed a free pass in the early Dem primaries to attack Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at will. (Want proof? Here's some Slate love and a reminder that when Elizabeth Edwards said sumthin', sumthin' about race (and gender) that was later inadvertantly seconded by Geraldine Ferraro, only one of them was castigated for it.)
Give credit where credit is due. It'll force you to retool your commentary, sure. But isn't it worth it that you'll be working from a more informed platform?
Posted by clozliner on Sat 9 Aug 2008 at 02:24 AM
One huge question is:
Why did the MSM allow John Edwards to control the flow of this story?
Why was Edwards allowed to release his staged mea culpa at 11:00 p.m. on a Friday night to the reporter of his choice? What about the $15,000 a month that his Baby Mamma has allegedly been getting under the table? What about the more than $100,000 in campaign contributions that he paid her?
Enquiring minds want to know, if if "professional journalists" don't want to do their jobs.
Posted by padikiller on Sat 9 Aug 2008 at 10:45 AM
Why does the media spend so much less time about Republican Senator David Vitter repeatedly visiting hookers (caught once in 1999 and then again with the DC Madam)?
Some attention was paid to Larry Craig soliciting anonymous sex in the bathroom, but compared to Edwards? By the way, I read reports that Craig's orientation was well known in Idaho circles.
For many decades, I heard, the "worst kept secret in Washington" was that Strom Thurmond had not only had an affair, but had a child from that affair, and the other participant in the affair with this unapologetic segregationist was black.
I'm probably over-reading this, but in a recent list of "scandals" of both Republicans and Democrats, the only Democrats listed were Biden and Dodd, and their scandal was the same, they'd gotten a good deal on a mortgage.
If the media is perfectly willing to show daily coverage of Caylee, if they spend more time on Edward's affair than South Ossetia, they should be taken out and shot.
Posted by Josh SN on Sat 9 Aug 2008 at 05:14 PM
"Why does the media spend so much less time about Republican Senator David Vitter repeatedly visiting hookers (caught once in 1999 and then again with the DC Madam)?"
Maybe because David Vitter didn't drag his dying wife all over the country to pimp votes for his candidacy for President of the United States while he was screwing the help...
You think?
"Some attention was paid to Larry Craig soliciting anonymous sex in the bathroom"...
You call that media circus "some attention"? Pahleeze!
Posted by padikiller on Sat 9 Aug 2008 at 05:53 PM
So what's padikiller upset about? Hypocrisy? Nope. Both Vitter and Craig sponsored the Marriage Protection Amendment after their scandals.
I love the empty headedness of team politics.
Posted by Circusboy on Sun 10 Aug 2008 at 12:47 PM
The reason I need not care so much about an adultrous affair by a corporate CEO is that if he is lying about the company (ex., its profits) we have laws that will not only cost him his job, but will put him in jail for that lie. My interests, as a shareholder/owner are thus protected. But there are no laws that put politicians in jail for lying about their business (that is, the business of government). All politicians lie routinely as they make (and then break) promises. I have to look out, myself, for my own interests as a citizen/voter, without the aid of laws to protect me against his dishonesty. I therefore am intersted in whatever concrete measures may exists of a politician's honesty -- and the best test is his how he keeps his promise to his wife, made in his marriage vows.
Posted by Sue Scanlon on Sun 10 Aug 2008 at 01:55 PM
What you should be investigating is the money trail to hide Edwards girlfriend and love child.
Posted by rod bond on Fri 15 Aug 2008 at 03:26 PM