Comments on: John Edwards Story: Two big losers so far

By: Kevin R.C. O'Brien

Kevin R.C. O'Brien — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:32:46 +0000

I predict the Times and others will not examine their own values and ideology after this

Good call, Roger.

In the Times, Reporter’s Representative Clark Hoyt dismissed the idea that media bias played any role in the Times’s unwillingness to cover a story that reflected negatively on one of their beloved Democrats. This, after the selfsame Hoyt had 1,000 justifications for the Page 1, apparently fabricated story on “McCain’s mistress” who apparently wasn’t. I know some call Hoyt an “empty suit” but that’s a horrible insult to haberdashery.

In the Post, Media Cheerleader Howie Kurtz dismissed the idea that media bias played any role in the Post’s unwillingness to cover a story that reflected negatively on one of their beloved Democrats. This, by listing a number of personal scandals by various Republican dirtbags that got wall-to-wall above-the-fold play in his paper.

Are they lying, or are they blinded by their partisanship?

Here’s a look at the value that this kind of reporting adds:
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NYT#chart2:symbol=nyt;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

By: Judy, NYC

Judy, NYC — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:46:35 +0000

the nytimes, as all of us know (with the exception of obama zombies), is at least six degrees below the tabloids who seem to be the only ones in possession of any facts. once staffed with respected journalists and fact checkers, this New nytimes is its evil twin. the zealous editors blow off any story, like the Edwards scandal, that might muss a single hair of dear obama’s head. instead, they obligingly go about seeking racists amongst the baffled populace (as joe mccarthy sought commies under our beds).

By: srlucado

srlucado — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:55:15 +0000

“I predict the Times and others will not examine their own values and ideology after this because they have too much vested in their world view.”

That, plus when have they *ever* examined their own values and ideology? Once you’re comfortable being Always Right, what’s the point?

Scott

By: jedrury

jedrury — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:10:19 +0000

Nodak:

Apt comments ! Good read.

Huge rot in the press. Howie Kurtz in the WashPo explains that the Post did not go with the story because it lacks “corroboration.” What may I ask is that when the Enquirer has its reporters eye balling him in the hotel. In plain sight sure passes as corroboration in court. But not with the Post. ???

Since this is as much a press scandal as a sex scandal, it underscores the huge growing mistrust and alienation of the public with the press. The public has turned off the networks for cable, the newspapers for the internet, for Google news and niche reporting.

By: whiskey

whiskey — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 01:47:56 +0000

Feminists at the usual places: Pandagon, Feministe, etc. love Edwards even more. Most of them wish they were Rielle Hunter.

Edwards will suffer little from women in this affair — many will find it “hot” and “fun.”

By: nodak boy

nodak boy — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 01:14:51 +0000

The National Enquirer does not get the props it deserves. It became clear years ago they do “a heckuva job” as they say, in reporting, often sparing no expense, alas, of course……
they are crass and mean and rejoice in others’ misfortune in an utterly sinful way, but their reporting almost always is accurate, if couched in purple prose.
(Aside from exxagerating with computer or other types of faux art of the cellulite of celebrities…)
They are a ways from such as “The Globe” and “Weekly World News,” and really don’t report on aliens invading earth, etc…
Since the O.J. trial, they have led the way on most major (if tawdry) scandals, etc.
More than is realized, the Enquirer represents a real old-fashioned and American type of balls-to-the-wall reporting, damn the torpedos full speed ahead kind of journalism that has slowly leached out of mainstream media.
It’s not nice but maybe it’s indispensable.
Reasons for the MSM sitting on this story: A dash of the downsizing effect: it’s easy to say no to such stories when you feel more beleagured, short-staffed, low on budget, etc….
Of course the partisan bias is impossible to ignore: Olbermann offered as an aside (as if, what else) that he had deep affection for the Edwards, and of course, his pained expression the whole time was as if he was telling his teacher that his mother had just been put into the booze rehab; his eyes sparkle and his lips tremble with desire and his nostrils dilate when he reports a Republican with his pants around his ankles.
The MSM has had a deep loss of much of the investigative juices, through both downsizing and laziness and maybe a litte bit of dumbing down, along with the homogenizing and echo chamber effect;; “if THEY are not reporting on it, we’re not either!”
One could make the case, in fact, that this story, actually, is a great petri dish of organic evidence of rot in our nation’s journalism. Despite the story being no big apples.
A quick, deft, thorough investigation of the initial story months or a year ago could have actually kept it within the bounds of decency and in the proper news hole, maybe A23.
Although the Enquirer’s tactics at the hotel of using multiple reporters chasing him down is embarrasingly crass, it’s dang effective and maybe worth it to hold national politicians up to the sunshine…

The snobbishness of the MSM ends up not working and making them look doubly foolish: they now are reporting the same damn story as the tabloid, just weeks later yet still with little original work of their own. They end up with neither end of the stick. They could just as well have repeated the Enquirer story much earlier.
And of course, Edwards admission today proves implicitly the $400 haircut paid off.
So he’s got that going for him.

By: Mark Poling

Mark Poling — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 00:58:13 +0000

Shorter Greenie: “Na na na na na I can’t HEAR you I know what you are but what am I????”

Actually, Greenie, the message you should have gotten, had you been paying attention, is that populist demagogues like Edwards will bend you over, have their way, leave a lousy tip, maybe give you a little gift that keeps on giving, and deny they ever loved you when the shyt hits the fan.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

By: Promoguy

Promoguy — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 00:25:30 +0000

Hey Lighten’, I’ll do some research. Comments from the underground. Read them and weep, LOL
“I am definitely surprised to hear this from Edwards. But his revelation seems to be quite graceful, certainly more so than the average affair scandal.”
“Why would having an affair and lying about it be an issue with the American Sheeple…oh wait”
“Right . . . an “affair” beats illegal war and TORTURE . . . !!”
“Get somebody in the media to put a spotlight on McCain’s affairs right now!!!”

Want more. Go to DU. It’s actually fun reading, but not while you’re drinking coffee.

By: Mike G

Mike G — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 23:41:31 +0000

Let’s not forget the role played by objective Wikipedia in this!

By: Captain Hate

Captain Hate — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 23:22:49 +0000

13 comments and nobody’s mentioned that John’s father worked at the mill.