Edwards, Rielle Hunter, Busted: HuffPo ‘s Sam Stein, who got the story rolling, appears to be vindicated. … P.S.: Always trust content from kausfiles! Never trust content from Jerome Armstrong. … P.P.S.: Will this be the first presidential-contender level scandal to occur completely in the undernews, without ever being reported in the cautious, respectable MSM? That’s always seemed an interesting theoretical possibility–a prominent politician just disappears from the scene, after blogs and tabloids dig up dirt on him, but nobody who relies on the Times, Post, network news or Mark Halperin has the faintest idea why. If this is that case, it will have come along sooner than I would have thought. … P.P.P.S.: But it’s hard to believe the MSM can ignore the story now. Don’t think Obama will! …
"Get it first, but first get it second." The old Newsweek rule! I hope that’s the rule the MSM is following. If so, here’s an MSM mention! And here. Business Week is what, chopped liver? And doesn’t Jack Shafer count? … I fear there is a new rule: "We don’t want to get it at all. Not even just a mention of the ‘allegation.’ Not even second." Why? Jon Fine’s Business Week piece summarizes some likely reasons. A couple of points:
–Fine notes that "Edwards isn’t considered a likely vice-presidential candidate by the press." That’s true. But he is a likely Obama cabinet official. Many Dems would like to see him as Attorney-General. That’s what’s at stake in the love-child coverage. The Enquirer has killed him as a VP candidate. But if the MSM goes into full "protect Elizabeth" mode the damage might yet not quite be enough to stop his confirmation by a Democratic Senate next year. "Protect Elizabeth" = "protect A.G. John."
—If the Enquirer story is true, Edwards didn’t just cheat on his sick wife after making a big deal of his loyalty to her in the campaign. He also presided over an elaborate cover-up, involving lies and duplicitous lobbying of the MSM. What is it the CW says about cover-ups? Eliot Spitzer looks like a Boy Scout in comparison.
P.S.: If the MSM can discuss the charges in meta form ("It’s so easy to jump to conclusions—and I admit, this looks bad") in blogs, chat rooms, and in press commentaries, why not on the front page in political commentaries? As things stand, here’s a rundown of media performance on the John Edwards front:
–The New York Times doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
–The print edition of the Washington Post doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
—Newsweek doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
—Time doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
–Katie Couric didn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
–Brian Williams didn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
–Charlie Gibson didn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
—RealClearPolitics doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
—HuffingtonPost doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday (and it’s their story!). I blame the commenters.
–Mark Halperin doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
–Mark Ambinder doesn’t tell you what happened yesterday.
–One Roger Simon tells you what happened yesterday–but the other Roger Simon doesn’t!
Has the gap between what the MSM lets you know and what happened–and what you can easily find out happened–ever been greater? …
