Bloomberg Anywhere Remote Login Bloomberg Terminal Demo Request


Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.


Financial Products

Enterprise Products


Customer Support

  • Americas

    +1 212 318 2000

  • Europe, Middle East, & Africa

    +44 20 7330 7500

  • Asia Pacific

    +65 6212 1000


Industry Products

Media Services

Follow Us

Bloomberg Customers

John Edwards, The National Enquirer, And The Mainstream Press

Posted by: Jon Fine on July 23, 2008

(UPDATE 8/8: A new post discusses all the below in light of John Edwards’ confession.)

The National Enquirer comes up with what appears to be some evidence for their previous allegations on John Edwards’ infidelities.

(Caveats apply. I haven’t done any reporting on this, but it certainly seems like they’ve found circumstantial evidence that at least passes muster with what I’ll call the Miami Herald standard for publication.)

Big blogs are quick to note, rightly, on how the big guns of the mainstream press have thus far steered completely clear of said story. But when it comes to tracking politicians’ peccadilloes mainstream media behavior has reliably been a bit schizophrenic. Even in this info-glutted era.

Here’s why this story didn’t get a whole lot of coverage in the bigger mainstream outlets, despite the agitation of certain prominent blogs:

1. Edwards never broke the Presidential plausibility threshold. He never looked like he might be nominated, especially once he lost the Iowa primary.

2. Edwards exited the race. Just before Gary Hart pulled out off the ’88 race based in part on, er, a story and photos that ran in the National Enquirer, the Washington Post was readying another story about Hart’s complicated love life. When he stopped his campaign, that story did not get published. As then-Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee said in Richard Ben Cramer's majestic, barbell-like account of the 1988 campaign What it Takes: "I don't see any reason why we should [publish] . . . "The chase is over." (This, interestingly, somewhat contradicts what he told the Times in the previously linked story. And, to circle back to point #1, when Hart unsuccessfully re-entered the race he didn’t pass the plausibility threshold, netting just 4% of the vote in New Hampshire.)

3. Edwards isn’t considered a likely vice-presidential candidate by the press, despite appearing on some lists of potential candidates. He's not in any elected position, nor is he running for one.

4. Edwards has a sick wife, who many seem to instinctively like. (And much more than her husband, in fact.)

5. Most importantly, there was nothing resembling the smoking gun that's emerged in other scandals. With Hart, there were pictures and a stakeout of where he met with Donna Rice. While arguably neither was enough to draw specific conclusions, both were enough to raise eyebrows. Bill Clinton got exposed (repeatedly) as front-runner and President, but in all of the instances that got covered in the mainstream press—Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and Gennifer Flowers—there was some kind of, ah, evidence, or tapes, or an involved party going on the record.

No such thing exists for Edwards. And one big major mainstream outlet’s already gotten raked over the coals for running allegations about John McCain based on secondhand sourcing.

It will be interesting to see if this breaks out of the blogs and into the mainstream press.

I’m betting it won’t. But then Mr. Genius here was betting that Edwards would win the Iowa primary, so, you know, grain-of-salt time.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Reader Comments


July 23, 2008 01:07 PM

I tend to wonder about this news threshold as well. Americans are asked to support business leaders by purchasing their products and they're every bit as important as elected officials in the reality of our lives, yet their affairs are largely not covered in anything but the crank press. Why should this threshold exist?


July 23, 2008 01:20 PM

This article is unworthy of publications such as Business Week. I'm surprised that it is even being covered, considering that all of the allegations are false. The National Enquirer is reporting this to make money and headlines, just as if Clinton was also connected to aliens. The traditional media, except for this magazine, won't touch it, but not for the reasons the columnist listed. It is because the evidence is more than circumspect, and also most everyone knows Edwards is squeaky clean when it comes to his personal life.

I hope Business Week doesn't stoop so low again.

Beverly Hill

July 23, 2008 05:53 PM

I understand National Enquirer's reasons for running with the Edward's inuuendo - sensastional headlines, regardless of whether they are true or false, sell magazines. That's NE's niche, they do it well, and it provides entertainment while waiting in the grocery line. I'm considerably less clear on Business Week's justification. I don't pick up BW to be entertained, I read it to be better informed and I trust the information I'm reading has been vetted. When did writing a story about a non-story become accepptable serious journalism? If Senator Edwards get picked up for VP, and if any of the information relating to the accusations can be corroborated, then write a story Americans can use to make an informed decision about voting for him. Otherwise, either leave the gossip to those who do it best or don't expect to be taken seriously as a reliable news provider.


July 23, 2008 09:40 PM

"I'm surprised that it is even being covered, considering that all of the allegations are false..."

OF COURSE its true. If it was false, Edwards would have protected his good name by taking a DNA test immediately after the child's birth. That he didn't is (as Sherlock Holmes would say) the dog that didn't bark.

I like John Edwards, I voted for him in the primaries and I thought he'd make a great president, but the Enquirer nailed him fair and square. Its one thing to father an out of wedlock child before you enter public life, but this affair began (and apparently was still ongoing as of Monday) AFTER his 2004 presidential race while he was gearing up for the 2008 race.

I don't really care about the morality of most public figures, but elected officials are different, especially if they want the top job. We give the president (and just a heartbeat away, the VP) a frightening amount of power and its no job for a scoundrel. As an Edwards voter it hurts me to say this, but any guy who impregnates his mistress while his wife is home dying of cancer, and then threatening a friend's marriage by pressuring him to take the blame IS a scoundrel.

Again if its not true, show us the DNA test.


July 23, 2008 09:46 PM

Too bad the evidence isn’t as to an alleged affair with a lobbyist 8 years ago or we might have read about it in the NY Times this evening. See, e.g. The issue of sufficient evidence seems to be murky there as well.
This story involves a Democrat, however, so the MSM, with the most prominent exception of the LAT, seems to be exercising “serious journalism” and ignoring the story. But I wonder what the NYT take would be if the Dem. nomination was still open and Edwards was strongly opposing Obama.


July 24, 2008 06:15 AM

You sure have alot excuses for the MSM to protect a democrat.


July 24, 2008 12:00 PM

Anyone who's followed this story knows it's much more than innuendo.

Attacking the Enquirer on this story without having read it (obviously, if you're still labeling the mountain of facts as "innuendo"), is akin to reviewing a book without having read it.

...and I don't seem to remember such an extreme level of media skepticism when the Enquirer broke the Rush Limbaugh Oxycontin story.

Congrats, Business Week on not being part of a fast-thinning MSM herd.


July 24, 2008 12:26 PM

The Enquirer story is obviously true for two reasons:

*Notice Edwards has not denied it at all, why isn't he saying "I was nowhere near that hotel at 2 am". Because he was!

*Not even the Enquirer can just make things up like this and not face libel suits. They report a lot of bizarre stuff but most of it turns out to be true.


July 24, 2008 02:00 PM

The reason is simple. It is from a report by the National Enquirer, which claimed Obama was a terrorist plant. Furthermore, there are no pictures, video, or other forensic evidence to ascertain the Enquirer's claims.

If anyone is being selective, it is Matt Drudge in carrying the water for a publication that claimed, among other things, that the Clintons hung propolactic devices from the White House Christmas tree.


July 24, 2008 02:03 PM

reason 6: they are a bunch of Hypocrites!

Matt Drudge

July 24, 2008 02:04 PM

They key being *MOST*.


July 24, 2008 02:04 PM

No evidence? Hello?????? he was caught in the basement of the Hilton at 2:30 AM, and couldn't explain himeself. This disgusting man is cheating on his DYING wife, and that's ok with you? He has a child out of wedlock, no monetary support? no child support? Man, you Democrats are the biggest Hypocrites I have ever seen.

greg p

July 24, 2008 02:04 PM

Twilight Zone material. Under your explanation, the Larry Craig incident would not have been covered. The McCain rumors would not have been covered. Newt Gingrich would still not be lambasted for having an affair while he wife was sick. The Rep from Fla who sent emails to the pages would not have been covered. But they all were. There is one reason the mainstream press covered all these, and ignored the Edwards situation. All the ones covered are Republicans. Edwards is a Democrat.


July 24, 2008 02:04 PM

The reason the mainstream press has not picked it up is because Edwards is a democrat. If it was a republican, you can bet it would be all over the headlines. No question about it.

Notice Edwards has not denied being at that hotel. For those who say this story is baseless, wait until he has to directly deny everything stated. He will not because he would then be caught in yet another lie. He knows his VP prospects are no doomed.


July 24, 2008 02:05 PM

John Edwards is a phony. Everyone with half a brain - liberal or conservative -knows that. The guy is concerned with one thing in life: himself. Oh yeah, and class warfare.


July 24, 2008 02:13 PM

Actually, no one would care so much if he didn't use his wife's tragedy for his own campaign. There is really nothing this guy wouldn't say or do to get ahead. He is the Union/ Populist/ Liberal's own Jimmy Swaggert.


July 24, 2008 02:16 PM

Of course it's true - but I'm confused...

After our democrat friends inflicted Bill Clinton on us, it thought that having "sexual skeletons" in ones closet was a BIG PLUS with them.

c'mon - it's his "private life" :).

I'm SHOCKED that anyone would think that our MSM friends are anything but 100% impartial and objective. I mean really, you just have to look at how even handed they're being in the current election... :):)


July 24, 2008 02:18 PM

All Edwards has to do is bring forth a witness to verify his whereabout on the night in question....

And I have for year been amazed when folks say "I don't care what he does in his personal life". By their logic he can lie to his most trusted friend and wife in the most scandalous way, yet they believe he will be honest with them about issues of national about being stupid.

Christopher Scott

July 24, 2008 02:19 PM

The reason why the establishment media does not publish the Senator Edwards story is that he is a Democrat and they are Democrats. They hate attacking one of their own. It is as simple as that.

Ern Collins

July 24, 2008 02:21 PM

These type of stories are so trivial. Let's discuss the real issues....such as debating if Edward's mistress is uglier than Camilla Parker Bowles.

Jerry King

July 24, 2008 02:24 PM

(1)Edwards is a leftist democrat.
(2)Edwards is a leftist democrat.
(3)Edwards is a leftist democrat.
(4)Edwards is a leftist democrat.
(5)Edwards is a leftist democrat.

Those are the real five reasons why this is not a story, and everybody knows it.


July 24, 2008 02:24 PM

So how do you explain Larry Craig? He wasn't running for president.

The fact is that he's a Democrat, and right now the media love to print something when a Republican messes up (corruption! corruption in Washington!), but don't when it's a Democrat. Just compare how much air time they gave Larry Craig vs. how much they gave money-in-the-freezer Jefferson.


July 24, 2008 02:25 PM

The U.S. mainstream media is a joke.

It's ok to talk about rumors surrounding A-rod and Madonna, but not a Democrat who was running for President.

It's pathetic.

He brought this scrutiny on himself when he decided to run for the highest public office in the land.

Jim Baker

July 24, 2008 02:25 PM

Edwards has amassed fantastic personal wealth through malpractice litigations. He knows libel and slander law better than most lawyers. Have you even heard him threaten this scandal rag with a lawsuit? If he doesn't sue them out of existence, it is because what they say about him is completely true. This clown is just another empty suit. He does have perfect hair, I am told.

Barry Duren

July 24, 2008 02:27 PM

So, why was Larry Craig such a huge story then? Edwards is a high profile Democrat.

That's why the story is being downplayed.



July 24, 2008 02:28 PM

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha stoopid democrat caught again!!!!


July 24, 2008 02:29 PM

You gotta laugh at some of the comments here. "My God, the National Enquirer is only publishing this story in order to make money!" Hello? This is earth. The New York Times and every other publication print stories for one and only one reason; to make money. It they don't they go out of business. Get a grip guys.


July 24, 2008 02:30 PM

If its true that they cornered him like a rat...where are the photos? If they want this to be taken seriously at least publish the photos taken.

Plus initial article indicated there were people staying and watching. No one had a camera phone to capture this? And if so why hasn't it been leaked.

Jon Fine

July 24, 2008 02:32 PM

Thanks for reading, and the many spirited and smart comments. Must admit to being slightly confused to the "because he's a democrat" reasoning, seeing that, last I checked, so were Gary Hart and Bill Clinton. As for Craig, well, he was still in the Senate.
I also think the Times' experience with McCain, which many point out, is leaving many outlets unusually leery absent incontrovertible evidence and/or someone directly involved coming forward.
I predicted this would stay out of the mainstream media, although it's surfaced--slightly--in the LA Times and in the Washington Post. (And--big apologies--Slate is certainly mainstream media.)



July 24, 2008 02:32 PM

You gotta laugh at some of the comments here. "My God, the National Enquirer is only publishing this story in order to make money!" Hello? This is earth. The New York Times and every other publication print stories for one and only one reason; to make money. It they don't they go out of business. Get a grip guys.


July 24, 2008 02:33 PM

All lame excuses. He may not be running for president now, but he was when the affair began and the media knew about it then and refused to report it.

Also, even though the media knows full well he's not a likely VP candidate, the MSM knows he's seriously being considered for the AG post.

As the other posters have said this isn't being reported because Edwards is a democrat.

There's more evidence of an affair with Edwards than there ever was with McCain and the NYT didn't hesitate smearing McCain.

Stop making excuses for your compatriots and tell the truth. The media won't touch Edwards because he's a democrat.


July 24, 2008 02:34 PM

MSM did not nor needs to write about a nobody who screws around.


July 24, 2008 02:34 PM

Here are the real 5 reasons:

1) He's a liberal democrat.

2) He's a liberal democrat.

3) He's a liberal democrat.

4) He's a liberal democrat.

5) He's a liberal democrat.


July 24, 2008 02:34 PM

You gotta laugh at some of the comments here. "My God, the National Enquirer is only publishing this story in order to make money!" Hello? This is earth. The New York Times and every other publication print stories for one and only one reason; to make money. It they don't they go out of business. Get a grip guys.

bull ensign

July 24, 2008 02:35 PM

I understand that Edward's friend has stepped forward and admitted that the guy in the hotel was him in Edwards drag.


July 24, 2008 02:36 PM

Shame on BusinessWeek covering- up, once again, for a Demoncrat scumbag! If this was a Republican, say Mitt Romney, this Liberal rag would have been all over the story!


July 24, 2008 02:37 PM

If the guy was a Republican, every network and newspaper in the country would have jumped on the story. Count your blessings Mr. Breckgirl - you effing scoundrel piece of scum!


July 24, 2008 02:37 PM

Wouldn't Mr. Edwards (hotshot attorney) be aware of his legal options if this were untrue and to after the Enquirer? Everyone knows this is true, but unless the Enquirer provides a DNA sample, the enabling MSM will try to ignore it. Perhaps Mr. Edwards should redirect his passion (political and "other" into more appropriate arenas.


July 24, 2008 02:37 PM

If I was accused by some trashy tabloid rag like the Enquirer of adultery against my dying wife and I was a trial lawyer in real life, I'd sue the living crap out of them for slandering my good name. Ahem, Mr. Edwards?! Bring a lawsuit for defamation or slander. Get some big cash out of the Enquirer for destroying your reputation and causing emotional distress to your family. Be a man and stand up for your family and for your own sake.
I'm betting you won't because the allegations are true. FAIL.


July 24, 2008 02:39 PM

How is an out of wedlock child not a "smoking gun"?

Mr X

July 24, 2008 02:41 PM

"Edwards isn’t considered a likely vice-presidential candidate by the press, despite appearing on some lists of potential candidates."

You contradict yourself. In fact press speculation has Edwards as one of Obama's final choices for Veep. That alone makes the Enquirer 'story' worthy of pursuit and your only defense is to simply pretend that reality does not exist.
Just wait until the Enquirer comes out with its photos of Edwards at the hotel.

Mark / DallasTx

July 24, 2008 02:42 PM

So let me get this straight. The New York Times runs a front page article about John McCain possibly having a mistress that cant be substantiated and now the reason the major leftwing media can't do the same for a Democrat is because they already screwed the Republican. "Yeah we can't throw egg in John Edwards face because we already did that to John McCain and it was unfair". Once again the Liberal gets off scott free. Yeah it's a "total coincidence".


July 24, 2008 02:44 PM

The Elephant In The Room is simply that the press would much rather wound a Republican. Anyone who doubts that is utterly out of touch.

Reality is what it is.


July 24, 2008 02:46 PM

Jeff & Benny - let's see if you feel the same way when the pictures come out. This guy is scum, and it is time that he, and the rest of the idiots you turn a blind eye toward, are held accountable for their actions. By the way, send our regards to Jesse and Al tonight at dinner.


July 24, 2008 02:48 PM

Not to put too fine a point on it, here are the real 5 reasons:

1) He's a liberal democrat.

2) He's a liberal democrat.

3) He's a liberal democrat.

4) He's a liberal democrat.

5) He's a liberal democrat.


July 24, 2008 02:48 PM

If a story similar to this was broken or hinted at about a republican, the press would be all over it. My goodness we had one media outlet (CBS) making up material to be used against a republican.

Again, this story was out there in December before Edwards dropped out of the race and no media outlet showed any curiousity. But the NYT smeared McCain with far less information after that. Hmmmm and still you you're "slightly confused to the 'because he's a democrat' reasoning."

It's plain to anyone paying attention. The media has a love affair with every democrat candidate. Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Tribune is over the moom about being on "O-Force One" with Obama as he goes on his learning tour. Imagine if Bush did the same in 2000. Lynn Sweet would have been complaining about his lack of experience instead.

Stop pretending and admit it.


July 24, 2008 02:48 PM

Thank you Business Week for outing yourself as just another media outlet willing to play CYA for John Edwards.

Their isn't a journalist alive who honestly believes that Edwards wasn't rightfully caught with his pants down. Still, we fully expect them to keep up the denials.

Again, thanks for living up to our lowest expectations... hypocrites!


July 24, 2008 02:49 PM

Here we go again with media bias.

If he were a member of the GOp this story would be running and running and running ( )

The trouble with the MSM is its tainted and untrustworthy.

Ex-Edwards fan

July 24, 2008 02:50 PM

It's precisely because he has a sick wife that this is such an important story. What a pig. He probably thought she'd be dead already.

Also this guy had hopes to be our next attorney general should the deplorable Obama get into office.

Don't stop reporting on this matter.


July 24, 2008 02:50 PM

The story is not being covered because the main stream media does not find stories on Democrat infidelities worthy of publication. There were a number of items of evidence in the story, one indisputable piece being hotel security being called in to provide an escort out of the hotel for Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards was never qualified for President only serving one term in the Senate, knowing he would not be re-elected by the people of NC, he ran for President. Hmmm, one term in the Senate and not being qualified, who else does that sound like..........


July 24, 2008 02:51 PM

Thank you Business Week for outing yourself as just another media outlet willing to play CYA for John Edwards.

Their isn't a journalist alive who honestly believes that Edwards wasn't rightfully caught with his pants down. Still, we fully expect them to keep up the denials.

Again, thanks for living up to our lowest expectations... hypocrites!


July 24, 2008 02:53 PM

Previous comment should have read "Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times..."


July 24, 2008 02:56 PM

#6. The story originated in the National Enquirer

Pundit Joe

July 24, 2008 02:56 PM

I do think the press not reporting this is due in large part to bias, but I personally don't think I need to know the intimate details of Edwards life.

On the surface it does make him out to be a scoundrel, but I don't know what kind of relationship he has with his wife or what the reasons might be for his actions. He may simply be a jerk or there maybe other things going on.

The major concern I have with such scandals has to do with the possibility of blackmail. But, I'm not too worried in this instance since it doesn't appear that Edwards will hold high office.


July 24, 2008 02:57 PM

what a strange piece of writing- only way this makes sense is that it's trying hard to convince the MSM to stay away from story by justifying the lop-sided approach- does admit that McCain got whacked by NYT w/out any evidence, but now uses THAT as a justification for not reporting on Edwards? and Elizabeth Edwards is all the more reason to report- she deserves the truth.


July 24, 2008 02:58 PM

reason #6 - the guy is a trail attorney - he is expected to screw people!!!


July 24, 2008 02:58 PM

This story is new B.S. piled on top of old B.S.


July 24, 2008 03:01 PM

John Edwards is a Democrat. That is the only reason that no one will report it.


July 24, 2008 03:03 PM

Witnesses watching him run from reporters at a hotel with a mistress at 2:40am, and running and hiding in the bathroom? This is not a smoking gun? And from a VP contender? The MSM has to be dragged kicking and screaming to report on democrats. People here might note that several in the MSM passed on the Lewinski story and nothing was reported until Drudge broke the story. Left bias in MSM has reached unbelievable levels.

Veteran Reporter

July 24, 2008 03:04 PM

There were too many holes in the Enquirer story. There were no eyewitness accounts, from the reporters or anyone else, to put him (or a look-alike) and her in a room together for any length of time. All they can do is put him or a look alike in the same hotel and briefly together in a public place. The rest is innuendo -- suspicious innuendo, yes, but innuendo nonetheless. The bottom line: It was a botched stakeout and a journalistically unsound account. No self-respecting publication would go near it.


July 24, 2008 03:04 PM

There are now three americas. The two Edwards often speaks of and the fantasy world where he can get away with this crap.


July 24, 2008 03:05 PM

I've been in media relations/PR for over 15 years, and there's one little fact the mainstream media would have you all not know: the National Enquirer has the highest accuracy rate of any newspaper, tabloid or national, in the US. Yes, this is true, and the NY Times, Businessweek and the rest of the media all know it well. The writing style is more geared toward shock and they exercise little judgment in terms of the potential impact a story might have on a person's life. But rarely do they stray from the facts. If the NE says they caught John Edwards rehanded, they did. The rest of the media is ignoring it because A. they got scooped and B. his association with Obama means he can't be touched right now for fear of damaging the halo effect. This "presidential standard" is baloney. Larry Craig was villified for far less and he was no where near the presidency. Guiliani was villified for his affair long before he was even on the national stage. It's total hypocracy and we all know it.


July 24, 2008 03:07 PM

Edwards is a Liberal, so the MSM gives him a pass. 'Nuff said.


July 24, 2008 03:11 PM

The morals in our country have degenerated so severely it doesn't matter if he has a whore, mistress, gay campanion, sex with a page, or illegal slave politicians will still embrace him as one of their own ie. $$$.


July 24, 2008 03:11 PM

John Edwards has been a non-story for months now. He will surely not be a story in the near future; he will probably not ever be a story again and this episode should seal the deal on that. The attempt to lump him with current Democrats - and by inference suggest they have the same morals - is disingenuous. MSM should, when the dust dies down, treat this as a sad footnote to his career. In the end it is a scandalous and titillating story that has little real news value and is now in its rightful home.

Bob Jones

July 24, 2008 03:18 PM

Don't you people have anything better to do than scrutinize the normal, imperfect lives of normal, imperfect people? I hope your friends and neighbors put their noses into yours as much as you do in Edwards'/Craig's/etc.

I'm willing to bet that 85% of you describe yourselves as Christians, too. What was that about casting stones? Pathetic, depressing and utterly common. You have the leaders you deserve.


July 24, 2008 03:18 PM

There is no evidence yet, if their were pictures I am sure other media outlets would've jumped all over this. To play the media bias card is a joke especially when the Obama gets hammered left and right and McCain gets a pass. With so called mainstream media outlets cutting and editing interviews to cover up his babbling stupidity.


July 24, 2008 03:18 PM

Jon Fine writes: " last I checked, so were Gary Hart and Bill Clinton"

Those stories broke out DESPITE the media. Drudge broke the story on Clinton, and Gary Hart brought on himself much the same thing that should be raining down on Edwards.

You can't honestly believe that if a Republican former Senator, former candidate for president were in the same situation, that this story wouldn't have blown wide open. The man fathered a child, is paying the bills for this woman, and his married best friend has said he is the father! The New York Times published a hit piece on McCain's alleged affair with a lobbyist on far less. Edwards was CAUGHT and is now lying to cover it up. His intimates are giving details to the Enquirer so he'll be exposed for the liar and cheat that he is. Nice try, Jon, but you're hurting your own credibility by putting whipped cream on this turd.


July 24, 2008 03:26 PM

Edwards NEVER had a chance to be President, he has a huge house, expensive hair cuts and enough smoke here to be a raging fire. Since he is a left wing nut job, the MSM will never cover this, unless Edwards registers as a Republican.


July 24, 2008 03:27 PM

There is a reason Edwards could not get reelected in North Carolina. The folks there knew more about this guy than the rest of the Country. What is mind boggling is the notion that Obama is seriously considering him as a running mate! We should have known this guy's priorities after his wife learned that she was battling cancer, and pretty boy decided he was going to run for president anyway!! What a chump!!


July 24, 2008 03:27 PM

Imagine that, a TIME publication irrationally sticking up for a Democrat. I believe Joe Klein is still breathing into a paper bag to overcome his recent Obama hyperventilations.

Chris Jones

July 24, 2008 03:28 PM

The reason it's not getting picked up by the mainstream is because Edwards is a Democrat. Had the exact situation happened to a Republican it would be wall to wall coverage. The media blackout of this story tells you everything you need to know about bias in the media.

There's a good piece about this here:

and here:


July 24, 2008 03:29 PM

The 'insufficient news threshold' theory is nonsense.

Edwards was the Democrat VP candidate in 2004. He was a #3 contender for the Democrat nomination in this cycle, and it has been widely reported that he has been shortlisted for the VP position for Obama.

The hypocrisy factor is also significant given the way he traded on his wife's illness and their supposedly gushily romantic relationship (the Wendy's anniversaries, the shared milkshakes, etc., etc.). If he is cheating on his (said to be) terminally sick wife, having his married (with three kids) aide falsely admit to the affair, and denying the paternity of his own child, he is showing zero integrity and behaving just like the slimy shyster laywer he has often been accused of being.

This is less newsworthy than Senator Craig's footsies in an airport bathroom or email from Rep. Foley sending emails to congressional pages? Those pols never aspired to the national level.

There is more meat here than there ever was to baseless allegations on the front page of the NY Times about a relationship between McCain and a lobbyist.

The reason that this is not being reported in the dinosaur media is obvious to all but only admitted by the honest - the old media is not fair or objective, they are partisan operatives of the left wing of the Democrat party. And this is precisely why they are a dying institution.


July 24, 2008 03:30 PM


If your spouse was caught at a hotel with a woman who just had a baby, who in the past has claimed it was yours, would you need photographs of them in the hotel room or would it suffice to have the photographs of him running around with her during his stay and then cowering in a bathroom in the middle of the night as he left the hotel?

No honest man hangs out in hotel rooms (between 9:30 pm and 2:30 am) with a woman he's previously been accused of having an affair with.

And the media accused Bush of being incurious... What a joke.


July 24, 2008 03:30 PM

Little news value? The guy was still on the VP list for Obama when the story broke! You guys are stretching yourselves into a pretzel to justify blatant bias!

If it's no value, why are the blogs all lit up about it?

This condescending "Nothing to see here, nothing to see here...." cover up is EXACTLY why the New York Times keeps bleeding red, and why talk radio has millions of devoted listeners and why the blogs are the preferred forums. The old media has been exposed as the biased old dinosaur whose time has come and gone. You had the public's trust and you squandered it. The public has gone elsewhere. Fine, you remind me of Kevin Bacon's character trying to calm the stampede at the end of Animal House. It's over -- we all know the truth about John Edwards and you can't smirk and attempt to snarkily cover up your shame at being caught being the lousy intellectually lazy, elitist "journalists" that you are. Have you fact-checked the Enquirer story, by the way? Didn't think so.


July 24, 2008 03:30 PM

Here are the facts:

1. John Edwards is a Democrat.

2. John Edwards currently holds no public office.

3. John Edwards is on Obama's VP list.

4. Mitt Romney is a Republican.

5. Mitt Romney currently holds no public office.

6. Mitt Romney is on McCain's VP list.

7. If the facts of the National Enquirer story were exactly the same but it was Mitt Romney rather than John Edwards, it would be front page news in newspapers and the top story on the network and cable news and the press would be hounding both Romney and McCain for comment.

8. If you don't agree with fact #7, you live in outer space.


July 24, 2008 03:31 PM

This is one of the most remarkably stupid analyses I've ever seen from an MSM publication (Yes Business Week, just because YOU have a blog does not mean that you are NEW media). Clueless and factually wrong. Edwards HAS been cited as a possible VP candidate and his wife is NOT universally liked.

It is as if you are completely unaware that republicans exist. You go back to 20 years to rationalize why it's not covered when you have the feeding frenzy around Larry Craig coverage from 2 years ago. Is the liberal media actually homophobic in its coverage?


July 24, 2008 03:32 PM

Com'on... Good old John was just looking for a few homeless in the halls of Beverly Hilton. I guess they all left the bridge he use to go to for his speech material. Geez, what a loser. I hope his wife takes his 20,000 sq ft home and turns it into a homeless shelter with all class action law suit income.


July 24, 2008 03:32 PM

What is scary is that, if the story is true (probably is), Edwards failed to consider the number of respects in which his conduct was wrong, and that he believed he would not get caught. How easily could he have been blackmailed, to say the least, had he been elected president or served as vice president. To have someone with such unbelievably poor judgment with their hand on the button. Wow. I suspect, however, that the judgment of the other candidates may not be much better.


July 24, 2008 03:34 PM

A lot of Republicans do seem to be fixated upon marital infidelity, don't they? But they don't have to look any further than their current Presidential candidate, John McCain, who was chasing his second wife while still married to and cohabiting with the first.


July 24, 2008 03:34 PM

Reason #7:

#7 The power behind the mainstream press will fire them if they run the story

The question is, who is the real unseen Power person who is pullng all the strings?

Jay Valentine

July 24, 2008 03:37 PM

John, do a DNA test and have a press conference with you and Elizabeth telling us it was negative...

Bet that won't happen.

Idaho Diff Case

July 24, 2008 03:39 PM

So, based on what we've read -- since this is true -- we're going to have national congressmen espouse ethical issues, ask for Sen. Edwards' resignation, call him all sorts of terrible names, and drag his name through mud, right? Truly -- as mentioned above -- this is what happened in Idaho to Sen. Craig. Thought "wide stance" was bad for Craig? What about "lying, cheating, fathering a bastard, sneaking around after hours on a dying wife" for Edwards?


July 24, 2008 03:46 PM

No evidence other than unnamed people. Not even a reporters name was given. There are no pictures and there indeed has been a denial.

Maybe all politicians should give blood to have their DNA available for special, gossip rag stories like this that help create wood for so many Americans.


July 24, 2008 03:47 PM

good points. this IS the national enquirer we're talking about here, so i wouldn't chalk this up to bias either.


July 24, 2008 03:52 PM

Anybody want to bet me a million dollars this story won't turn out to be true?



July 24, 2008 03:57 PM

The denial was a "non-denial denial". It will certainly break wide and the story, as they say, will be included in the first sentence of former Sen. Edwards' eventual obituary, which is really sad for his wife and kids. As Andy Warhol pointed out in his Diaries, the Enquirer is generally reliable in this matters.


July 24, 2008 03:57 PM

It's the National Enquirer! If we start believing that rag what will be next...FOX?


July 24, 2008 04:03 PM

this piece is promoting delusions but what would expect from BW...some random congressman is looking for some glory in an airport restroom and it is big news for months because he is not a demomcrat
talk around it all you want, no one really believes your 5 reasons except folks like you


July 24, 2008 04:07 PM

The NE never said Obama was an Iranian agent. Google it.

JE is caught. Period. The NE sent its major reporters and photogs. Wait until the PRINT issue is out for more evidence. They've been tailing him, paying unknown sources (the GF? Her friends? Hotel employees?), and waited until a time of day that is nigh unto impossible to proclaim innocence over, and made him turn tail.
The NE didn't like being called liars the first go-round.


July 24, 2008 04:13 PM

You are referring to the original story back in October. The current story does list two N.E. reporters who were on the scene. It gives an incredible amount of detail about the whole episode.

On the other hand, John Edwards vehemently denied the allegations after the story was first released last year. He is a trial attorney and can be trusted! ;)


July 24, 2008 04:26 PM

the usual rush of conservatives to sniff out a major conspiracy and have everyone against them! Here is a substantial reason it has not as yet been published by more rep;utable simmer down and take a deep breath.


July 24, 2008 04:28 PM

Let's consider a reverse situation, where someone from the GOP, a recent candidate for President and still a candidate for Vice President (Mitt Romney comes to mind) was caught in the same situation as Edwards. Would the MSM ignore it? Are you kidding?


July 24, 2008 04:40 PM

Anyone who doesnt believe this story is either a political operative or has an IQ at least 20 points below average. The man was spotted at a hotel, well after midnight, with the woman he supposedly had an affair and child with. If he didnt have an affair with her and the child isnt his, why is he meeting with her in this fashion? Why is he meeting with her at all? Isnt that a newsworthy story? "Former Presidential candidate has late-night meeting with woman he was accused of having love-child with!" Thats not a story??? People want to claim that because it is the Enquirer, it automatically isnt true? That is the same mentality that said steriod accusations in baseball werent true because the came from Jose Canseco! The Enquirer has broken many HUGE stories over the years that were true. If this story isnt true, certainly they would be open to a huge lawsuit by a trial attorney. If the Enquirer were just making up a story, it seems pretty stupid to make it up about a trial attorney, doesnt it? If someone made up a story like this about me, I would take a DNA test and fight the accusation vigorously!! That is all Edwards needs to do-- take a DNA test!


July 24, 2008 04:44 PM

When did Rupert Murdoch acquire BusinessWeek?


July 24, 2008 04:48 PM

It makes no difference that Edwards is currently not in an elected position. He is in a public affairs job (studying "poverty" or something) at UNC-Chapel Hill and on the people of NC's payroll. Furthermore, he has made himself out to be this altruistic fighter for the poor and downtrodden while living in one of the wealthiest areas of the state. (I think it's where most of the local politburo members in the People's Republic of Chapel Hill live.) Pathetic that he is not exposed for the phony he is.


July 24, 2008 04:50 PM

I thought Business Week was To go out of the way to opine on a story they believe is a non-story, is hilarious.

On the subject, the points are distinctions without a difference. No two events are exactly the same. I do think that the baby deserves to be acknowledged by Edwards, and if through some miracle his wife didn't know about the affair, she is better off knowing while she can still do something about it.


July 24, 2008 04:50 PM

People are not very smart! Why go to the Beverly Hills Hilton? Why not go to the Red Roof Inn in Erie?


July 24, 2008 04:50 PM

Hey, Cheyenne.

I'll bet you.


July 24, 2008 04:54 PM

I knew something was up the when I saw his wife on the Colbert Report about 10 days ago. She looked heartbroken and I mean that. As I looked at her I wondered what she was so depressed about. Where was he at the time?


July 24, 2008 04:55 PM

All Hotels have security camera's...lets see the tapes!


July 24, 2008 04:57 PM

John Edwards made his living as a trail attorney! Why not sue and protect his name. He can't because..........


July 24, 2008 04:57 PM

According to the National Enquirer Elvis isn't dead (how many Elvis sightings have they published since they ran the photo of him in the casket?), John F. Kennedy didn't die in Dallas and lived out his days on Onassis's yacht and is now buried on an island and every other old movie star is at deaths door.

Half of the stuff that was on the cover of the Enquirer which I saw at the supermarket this week didn't have the ring of truth to it.

The last time I remember the Enquirer getting sued was by Carol Burnett, she got a dollar and an apology, so it really isn't worth anyones time or effort.


July 24, 2008 04:58 PM

You might want to look at the record of the NE in uncovering bits of news such as this. They have more people out chasing these stories and it would seem their record is pretty good at finding these stories first. Some people never believed Clinton was a sex hound and now some here don't want to believe it about Edwards. I will take the bet that he is guilty of running around on his cancer stricken wife.

albert star

July 24, 2008 04:59 PM

You people are nuts giving the National Enquirer any benefit of the doubt whatsover. Have you ever read that trash? Edwards already flatly denied any affair and I wouldn't dignify anything the Enquirer ever printed with a response. So what if they knew where he was staying and spotted him in a hotel, though even that is questionable. Where were they cameras if they were tipped off in advance?


July 24, 2008 05:06 PM

Where are the pictures? Where are the interviews with the other guests? Where are the names of the reporters?


July 24, 2008 05:15 PM

For the record, Larry Craig was arrested and pleaded guilty to the charge. John Edwards is simply being accused by a tabloid rag. Obviously the wingnuts from Drudge are dumping here.


July 24, 2008 05:19 PM

Shameful, utterly shameful. I have been a JE supporter since 2004 and can only hope this story isn't true. If it is true, well, I guess it shouldn't surprise me much; he's a politician.


July 24, 2008 05:19 PM

Had Edwards been a Republican the press would be all over the story and you know it. Don't hand us this 5 reasons crap. The 6th reason is he's a Democrat.


July 24, 2008 05:19 PM

Excellent Point BD.

The hard copy that we have to buy is where those pictures will be.

The Silk Pony caught with a mare in another pasture. Deny Deny Deny.


July 24, 2008 05:20 PM

While we are privy to every scandal snaring Republicans, it seems there is a dearth in equal opportunity smear journalism. Larry Craig is not a "big player"- not a presidential or vice-presidential hopeful, not a very big fish in the whole scheme of things, so what gives with NOT covering this story about Edwards in the mainline media? It seems to me to be much more pertinent to political life to unmask those who are the more powerful hypocrites than the less powerful.

Jawn Kerry

July 24, 2008 05:25 PM

I actually was for the NE before I was against it.


July 24, 2008 05:26 PM

Actually, the Edwards story missed the most important promotion factor: he's not a Republican. If he was, it would be splashed everywhere. Like the article pointed out...see what the media did to McCain! News journalists are low-credibility activists that only care about protecting the Left. That's why when Dim Harry Reid got caught in the Abramhoff Scandal, the press ignored the fact that he even ADMITTED to taking as much money as anyone, and returning favors---and even then, they didn't frisk Reid when he claimed the scandal was a "Republican scandal." The press is so in the tank for the socialists...ahm...communists...ahm, Dimocrats; that it's disgusting! Edwards may or may not be guilty; but it won't get the attention it would if he were GOP.


July 24, 2008 05:27 PM

If the traditional media wants to know why they are shrinking at light speed this pathetic excuse to CYA their ignoring of the Edwards fiasco is exhibit A. When the usual suspects in the press stampede themselves to take down any Republican for any reason but then go into damage control mode and stick their head in the sand for any Democrat regardless of the reason ... you have ZERO CREDIBILITY AS A NEWS ORGANIZATION.

If the media types don't quit fawning over Obama like star struck groupies, this will most likely be the last major presidential election that they even register with the general public. How the business owners of these organizations don't read their employees the riot act is amazing to watch as their companies commit slow suicide.


July 24, 2008 05:31 PM

If it's NOT TRUE, it's a gross overuse of flagrant power of an out of control press. The last thing Elizabeth Edwards needs is any doubt in the innocence of her husband's faithfulness. Wish we had some lawyer that would sue the National Enquirer for this smear story -- oh yea, John Edwards made a living suing corporations like the National Enquirer. His silence is deafening.


July 24, 2008 05:40 PM

As others have said, if this were false, he would sue. A lawsuit would allow discovery, ie., a blood test. He has been caught. The usual suspects won't cover it until they have to. He is, after all, a liberal Democrat.

James S

July 24, 2008 05:55 PM

Let's be honest, the real reason the story isn't being picked up is because the National Enquirer broke...which gives it zero credibility in the mainstream media and mainstream America. The NE is the sort of garbage you carefully glance at over your shoulder at the check out line to get a laugh or two while waiting to buy groceries.


July 24, 2008 05:57 PM

The National Enquirer knows Edwards is a lawyer. Do you think they would possibly play loose with the facts with a trial lawyer. Give me a break. There are also rumors he wanted the AG job in the Obama administration.


July 24, 2008 05:57 PM

If the breck girl wants to end this story a simple dna test will take care of it,,,,anyone want to bet me he will never submit to the test? On that note, what a great outing for a "investigative journalist", following ole brecky around until he leaves some dna on a glass,,,then get dna from the child......hehehe......


July 24, 2008 06:10 PM

Jason, You forget Edwards's main concern...His Hairspray!! The Breck Girl has to maintain those locks!!!
Watching him deny it convinced me it is true...don't forget the guy is the classic 'ambulance' chaser , so I am not suprised by the snakes actions.As a lawyer he should have no trouble suing if it is false...It ain't!

not afool

July 24, 2008 06:11 PM

And the number 1 reason why this is not covered... The Obama is overseas and this story would blow that off the front page.


July 24, 2008 06:12 PM

Larry Craig broke the law.

John Edwards, as far as we know, did not.

It's his private life - and no one's business except those entranced by the banal.


July 24, 2008 06:12 PM

People tend to forget The National Enquirer came up with the photo of OJ wearing those 'ugly ass' Bruno Magli shoes...they won the civil case for the Goldmans!


July 24, 2008 06:12 PM

Reason 6.

Nobody in their right mind treats the National Enquirer as a trusted source on anything.

john smith

July 24, 2008 06:20 PM

I think we need to make the "free press " really free.Perhaps the main media in the United States isn't so free. Maybe the Congress should force it to be really free...... What a sick idea.


July 24, 2008 06:22 PM

Actually, there were rumors in Washington and Idaho for more than a decade that Larry Craig was gay, and the MSM didn't run stories about it. Larry Craig's sex life only became a story after he got arrested for soliciting gay sex in a public bathroom.

Come back and whine about "liberal bias" when Edwards gets arrested and nobody reports it.


July 24, 2008 06:31 PM

I guess Edwards' "Two Americas" requires two families.... heh heh

Rex Range

July 24, 2008 06:32 PM

Edwards is a liberal Democrat. Craig is a conservative (albeit in word and not in deed, as it turned out) Republican. End of story. The thing is, the media all know we're on to them and they don't care. Which is why Fox News kicks CNN's ass 3:1 to 4:1 and MSNBC 6:1 to 7:1 all day every day, why talk radio sets new all-time listenership records every year and why the Internet is starting to surpass all other outlets as the medium of choice for news. The liberal news & entertainment media (NEM) cabal--roughly, from Barbara Walters to everyone at MS- and non-MS NBC to everyone at CBS to John Stewart to David Letterman and 85% of all actors and comedians--are like babies having a tantrum because someone just turned their sandbox upside down. But the good news is, it's about over. Anderson Cooper, a lot of good people at Fox and a few at ABC are starting to take us toward a new future of "mainstream" media that actually begins to reflect the mainstream population. What a concept. If Senator Edwards is listening...THAT'S something actually worth getting all sexed up about.


July 24, 2008 06:33 PM

The one and only reason is because he's a democrat. It's a perfect example of the media's bias. If he were a republican, it would be front page news. Not only was he the #3 guy in the democratic race, he was the vice presidential nominee in 2004! It's not news? If it were Romney, Giuliani, or Huckabee, it would be on every channel.


July 24, 2008 06:33 PM

One other thing, the way you filter your responses to your blog is lame. Another sign of how clueless the traditional media is ... like we haven't ever read derogatory statements or seen bad words used. The point of a response to a blog is that it is real time and people interact.

I also love the way this post is buried on the site. Now BusinessWEAK can claim they covered it. Nothing to see hear, move along, etc.


July 24, 2008 06:38 PM

the libs always protect libs. this is nothing new! if the american public new half the truth about democrats they would get about as many votes as ralph nader does. if it is good for america libs. are against it. they been underminding the country for ever. they depend on the lazy american who votes as they are told to by the media aka libs.

David of Fox Lake

July 24, 2008 06:44 PM

"...To play the media bias card is a joke especially when the Obama gets hammered left and right and McCain gets a pass. With so called mainstream media outlets cutting and editing interviews to cover up his babbling stupidity."

I'm sure you can supply at least one example for each of your claims?
1. ...Obama gets hammered
2. ...McCain gets a pass
3. ...editing...babbling stupidity

I wait with bated breath....


July 24, 2008 06:44 PM

"And one big major mainstream outlet’s already gotten raked over the coals for running allegations about John McCain based on secondhand sourcing." Within that sentence is all the reason for MSM's reluctance to report this story, HE'S NOT A REPULBLICAN! All the other nonsensical reasoning offered in this column is smoke screen.


July 24, 2008 06:47 PM

"And one big major mainstream outlet’s already gotten raked over the coals for running allegations about John McCain based on secondhand sourcing." Within that sentence is the only reason for the MSM's reluctance to report this story, EDWARDS IS NOT A REPULBLICAN! No such qualms when it was McCain. All the other nonsensical reasoning offered in this column is smoke screen.


July 24, 2008 06:51 PM

This man is a leader in our country. He may not be running for president anymore but he still aspires for a leadership position in America. Just yesterday he spoke of fighting poverty in America, a leaders speech. As a leader he needs to behave in a certain matter. Adultery is one of the 10 commandments! Expose him if he needs exposing, no matter what party he is in.


July 24, 2008 06:58 PM

According to the above 5 criteria, Jesse Jackson could be subject 1 in the news cycle for a week with never a mention of his Love Child.

Bob K

July 24, 2008 06:58 PM

The reason given for all the trash about A-Rod, Madonna, Brittany and every other lurid situation is "the public right to know".

If Edwards is messing around, BW and the rest of the MSM should investigate it for " the public right to know."

No wonder newspapers and magazines are quickly dying- they selectively choose what the "the public has aright to know."

They also protect their own-why else there hasn't been more stories about how the housing problem wasn't partially Alan Greenspan's fault for not regulating the banks.

The public does have a right to know-they are going to pay over $330 billion for the hoiusing problem- and that's only the downpayment.


July 24, 2008 07:04 PM

Total BS. The guy was a major contender in the early primaries and was a VP candidate.

You are telling me the MSM would not report on this if it was Mitt Romney (who is also not viable anymore)?

What a freakin' joke. NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN where are you? Is the MSM so obsessed with Obama that they will no longer report the news for fear it will hurt him?

Eliot Spitzer

July 24, 2008 07:05 PM

I would like to see another democrat get splashed across the NY Post for a while.


July 24, 2008 07:07 PM

Face reality. Facts no longer mean anything.

Each preconceived opinion is acceptably tolerated, so long as it does not contradict the liberal, anti-American, feminist, gay, "animal-rights", "global-warming", pro-union, anti-business, leftie academic, "Hollywood", MSM, anti-Fox, anti-Bush, anti-neocon, anti-war, anti-military, Soros-driven agenda.

John Edwards having an affair does not fall within the afore-mentioned agendas so it is not covered by the MSM.

It "feels" so much better to "like John Edwards" because of his "class warfare" rhetoric, his "poor ill wife", etc. so let's just ignore any "bad press".

Pre-conceived opinions of the left will always trump reality and facts.


July 24, 2008 07:14 PM

This is really dancing around the issue. The reason why the mainstream media isn't covering this is they're too busy puckering up to Barack's Obama's backside. If a Republican had been the subject of the Enquirer investigation, they would have taken time out of their puckerfest to crucify the culprit.


July 24, 2008 07:16 PM

Again if its not true, show us the DNA test.


Burden of proof is on procecution. Sorry. Your bias is showing.


July 24, 2008 07:22 PM

Kind of the same reason the media doesn't report on John McCain's gaffe fest? Oh wait those are proven and the media chooses to ignore it. Fair and balanced, fair and balanced...

If Jesse Jackson can do it, why can't I?

July 24, 2008 07:22 PM

You missed the real 5 reasons the mainstream liberal press has not picked up on this during an election year...
1. bias
2. bias
3. bias
4. bias
5. bias


July 24, 2008 07:25 PM

Mr. Fine,
You attempt to refute the dem vs rep argument by using Clinton and Hart as examples.
Hart was nailed in a game of one-upmanship. He directly challenged the press to prove his dalliance. They did.

The story on Clinton/Lewinsky was held by Newsweek and broken by Drudge. Thereafter, the print and broadcast media gave unlimited time (and many joined the chorus) to Clintonites to refute the charges and, indeed, to help to destroy the accusers.


July 24, 2008 07:29 PM

Bottom line: Edwards is a Dem and the fact that he is a two-bit skunk cheating on a sick wife is not even enough to get the media to turn on one of their own.

The media is TRASH and anybody who defens their actions in this case, is just as TRASHY. You are low-rent hypocrites who squeal with delight at manufactured stories about the George Bush that Dan Rather got caught lying about. Or what about Bill Bennett and the gambling thing? He was a non-factor, yet you dirtbags ate lustily on his carcass.

Media and liberals are just filthy dishonest people, who care nothing about truth. You are just greedy people who want what others have earned because you're too lazy to get it for yourselves. And you'll do anything to try and win.

karl max

July 24, 2008 08:29 PM

Don't we know for a fact 90% of journalists in 'Main street' media are dems? Edwards is a phony through and through. For some our dem friends here to defend this guy must has half brain or one is scum or thugs like him.
This guy made huge fortune by suing hospitals/companies. If the story is really coming from nowhere, a decent human being would definitely fight back for sake of name, a ruthless trial lawyers will not go after magazine?
Looking at Obama, this guy is nobody who never manages any city/state or company, even a department. What is his tracking records to make us believe he is qualified to be next president of free world. Don't guys rememeber during 2000 campaign, these leftist media punks keeps qustioning W's qualification, just 6-year on governor mansion, here is even more, they 'remind' american people of how week is for Texas governship day in and day out.
The leftist media has accompolished what USSR/CCP could ever dreamed of drugging/brainwashing people's mind. These so called 'journalists' are truly 5th column.

Barry O

July 24, 2008 09:27 PM

"This is not the John Edwards that I knew."


July 25, 2008 10:41 AM

Something is so wrong here. The NI people make this many observations and contacts and they provide no photos. Surely the mainstream media can ask them (NI) to put up or shut up. Just ask for the reason there are no photos. Is that so hard?


July 25, 2008 07:54 PM

In response to Jon Fine's points:

1. What plausibility threshold did Larry Craig cross? How about Vito Fossella?

2. So he exited the race. Do you think if it was found out that Mitt Romney had fathered a child out of wedlock that nobody would print it?

3. He isn't considered a plausible candidate for vice president by the mainstream press. So that means what? Does that mean that political scandals or personal infidelities of politicians only matter when they're running for the highest office? I'll bet Eliot Spitzer wishes that was the case.

4. That is what makes it hypocritical in revealing about Edwards character (if true). The Edwards were not shy about their alleged devotion to each other, how her illness brought them closer together. In fact some might say they milked it for all it was worth. If he was cheating on her while she was undergoing treatment, and continues to cheat on her now, well...

And if he co-worst his friend, a married man come to falsely confess to fathering a child just to save his own sleazy ass... well, I guess I wouldn't be surprised.

5. What smoking gun did the God of Gods, the New York Times, have on John McCain? Where were the pictures of Newt Gingrich fooling around on his sick wife?

I'm sorry, but it becomes increasingly hard to believe that there is not a double standard when it comes to politicians who reflect the political beliefs of the members of the media, versus those with whom they disagree. The favorite thing of the media in a Republican sex scandal is to cry hypocrisy, either because the Republican supports "family values, or if gay, is against homosexual marriage. Meanwhile, the hypocrisy of Al Gore and John Edwards in building multiple huge homes and consuming the energy of 10 families is ignored, and Edwards infidelity is ignored.

And you wonder why people are cynical.


July 25, 2008 09:53 PM

Hey dummy, the security guard said it happened and the hotel camera caught it. NE won't drop eveything at once as they want Edwards to deny everything so they can hang him. Stay tuned


July 26, 2008 03:46 PM

Burden of proof is on procecution. Sorry. Your bias is showing.

My bias? I voted for the guy! Or if you mean my bias against guys cheating on their dying wife and fathering a child by their mistress, then yeah I plead guilty.

Right now its a he said/she said situation. The National Enquirer says a married man has a mistress, and said man denies completely. There'd be no way to answer it definitively except, as noted above, there's a smoking gun-- the baby's DNA.

What would be amusing is if the National Enquirer sued Edwards for commercial defamation (“That's tabloid trash. They're full of lies".) and demanded a DNA test to vindicate its good name. :o)


July 26, 2008 06:16 PM

Please! Does any HONEST man or woman believe that if ANY political REPUBLICAN, especially one who ran on the "two Americas theme," would not be front page news for at least a week?
As a former active liberal for decades and a former journalism major, there is NO denying the U.S. media has sunk to new lows with its bias and love fest with Obama. ANYTHING to get Obama to win WILL be done (or in this case not done) by the press! It's dispicable, but too many people are not HONEST enough to admit it.

Scott Vandelay

July 27, 2008 06:38 PM

He IS guilty as charged! There are witnesses, what more is needed?


August 9, 2008 12:33 PM

say again, Benny? (Jul 23, 1:20)

Post a comment



The media, entertainment and marketing worlds continue to shapeshift on a near-daily basis, as new forms arise and old assumptions erode. Where is it all going? No one really knows. But on this blog BusinessWeek’s media writers Tom Lowry and Ron Grover promise to provide ample helpings of scoop, provocation, and sharp analysis as they track and annotate this constantly changing terrain.



BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!