Comments on: Edwards, Elizabeth and the Comedy of Legacy Media

By: Judy, NYC

Judy, NYC — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:05:43 +0000

I actually went through the mourning process when i realized the new york times was dead. this monstrous thing with no brain (my apologies to medical incredible) that climbed out of the nyt grave, got rid of journalists, fact checkers, even college educated secretaries. the editors must have been former staffers, fired by the enquirer for breaching its standards.

By: Javelin

Javelin — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:57:05 +0000

What about McCain’s affairs? This is such infantile moral posturing, and I expect more from Mr. Simon than the average blogtard.

By: david levavi

david levavi — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:54:17 +0000

Reminds me of the NYT’s non-coverage of the Watergate break-in and its aftermath. As the Washington Posts hotly covered the story, the Times ignored it. Dummied up as to why it wasn’t interested and then made excuses about corroboration.

At dinner with my wife and some friends the evening following the break in, this (then) faithful Times reader insisted that the break-in had to be political. Why would a bunch of Cubans from Florida burglarize Democratic National Headquarters? To steal IBM Selectric typewriters? Hewlett-Packard calculators? Obviously they were after lists and information.

I made a wager that night, less than twenty-four hours after the break in, that a) this was no minor incident and b) that John Mitchell, Nixon’s hardnosed AG serving as GOP Election Chairman would be implicated before the affair was over.

If an ordinary laymen knew this based on the NYT’s original story of burglars arrested at Democratic election headquarters at the Watergate, how could the editors at the Times miss it? For weeks and months.

Simple answer: The Times was still recovering from its roughing up by Nixon’s White House over publishing the Pentagon Papers stolen by Daniel Ellsberg. The Sulzbergers and the Ochsen weren’t ready for another confrontation with the Administration. Cowardice, plain and simple, underlay the NYT hanging back while its competitor, The Washington Post climbed all over the story.

“All the news that’s fit to print” is a motto that would have worked nicely for Pravda under the Soviets. The NYT is unworthy of the constitutional amendments protecting it.

By: Tess

Tess — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:24:25 +0000

let’s see how long it takes the media to investigate why the Clintonista owned National Enquirer is so invested in taking Edwards down. Could it be payback for helping Obama deny Clinton the nomination? Additional benefit for Hillary: Edwards is diminished as a future threat. A twofer! Hillary may waddle, but she’s lethal.

By: Around The Campaign 2008 Sphere

Around The Campaign 2008 Sphere — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:52:01 +0000

[...] And At Times The Mainstream Media’s Reporting On The Scandal has not even been accurate. [...]

By: dougf

dougf — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:45:27 +0000

>i>”This is not the Iraq war, this is a story about a vain and silly man screwing around on his wife while the press covered it up because the vain silly man is a Democrat.
What more is there to say?”—Terrye

Actually that’s more than enough if you first get beyond the factoid that WE all know the accused MSM is as corrupt as the day is long. The MSM HAS TO DIE. Not because it reflects a viewpoint that some might find objectionable, but because it reflects a viewpoint while sailing under the flag of ‘TRUTH’. If it reflected ONLY ‘another’ viewpoint it would just as invidious and destructive.

I don’t care what happens to John Edwards. He’s merely beneath contempt. But I DO want the ‘media’ to DIE.

Soon.

By: LFIB9999

LFIB9999 — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:39:04 +0000

Edwards was being considered as a VP candidate. The Obamists had to ask him how he was going to keep this quiet. He went to LA to see what it would take to hush Hunter. When it got out everything unraveled.
Now Hunter says no paternity test? My guess: that is the quid pro quo for child support, and the baby’s tuition at Duke for 4 years.
OJ? The Enquirer had Gennifer Flowers right 16 years ago; the MSM is laughable, and doomed.

By: tanstaafl

tanstaafl — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:42:41 +0000

The online NYTimes is kind of thumbing down the whole Edwards’ story and featuring a long “piece” on John McCain’s “loose”" style and “unclear lines of command”…

On Edwards, there’s a barely findable “piece” on the “reticence” of the MSM, including, but not limited to, this from NYTimes Bill Keller…

Bill Keller, the executive editor, said in an e-mail message that Mr. Edwards’s dark-horse status and the “added hold-your-nose quality about The Enquirer” contributed to the lack of interest by The Times and the mainstream media generally.

Gee, what about the long “piece” in February casting McCain/female lobbyist aspersions (without foundation) ? No hold your nose reservations there, Mr. Keller ?

And the beat goes on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/business/media/09media.html

By: tanstaafl

tanstaafl — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:01:49 +0000

This is a fairly decent “piece” in the LA Times…

…until the writer, Tim Rutten, attempts to schlep the credit to ABC…

It’s interesting that what finally forced Edwards into telling the truth was a mainstream media organization. ABC News…

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-newrutten9-2008aug09,0,3175773.column

By: M,W. Kaul

M,W. Kaul — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:08:44 +0000

I have always said that in order to know all the immportant news you must read the Wall Street Journal and the National Inquirer. The rest of the press is fluff and imitation.