The New York Times cites the “public’s right to know” every time they reveal national security documents that aid and abet terrorists. However, when it comes to the John Edwards affair, the “public’s right to know” be damned.
The state of the media coverage–or rather, non-coverage–six days after the National Enquirer’s reporters catch John Edwards at the Beverly Hilton visiting his mistress and their love child.
Independent, Times Run American MSM Blockade on Edwards Affair News
Two daily newspapers from the U.K. cover the news the American mainstream media won’t. More specifically, the John Edwards Love Child news.
The Independent Sunday edition contained “Love child and mistress claims hit Edwards“, while the Times also offered major coverage.
Guy Adams of the Independent has an entertaining account of the affair.
Amid scenes more suited to a Benny Hill sketch than the corridors of a luxury hotel, two journalists and a photographer chased Mr Edwards – whose wife Elizabeth is battling incurable cancer – around the building for several minutes. He eventually went to ground in the men’s lavatory for a quarter of an hour, before being escorted from the premises by security staff.
The incident was reported in lurid detail by The Enquirer, and followed up in dozens of America’s influential political blogs and news websites, which claimed that Mr Edwards and Ms Hunter were filmed entering the hotel room at 9.30pm.
The country’s upmarket newspapers and major broadcasters refused to investigate The National Enquirer’s claims. Tony Pierce, the editor of The Los Angeles Times, went so far as to order staff “not to cover the rumours or salacious speculations”. Its unofficial blackout appeared to be holding firm until Friday night, when the presenters of Fox’s 9pm talk show, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, ran a report that confirmed several major details of the Beverly Hilton incident, and asked: “Why were the reporters chasing Edwards, and why is this story nowhere in the mainstream media?”
As mentioned, The Times also carried big coverage of the scandal in yesterday’s Sunday edition.
We’re not nearly as enthusiastic about that story however.
The Times’ reporter, Sarah Baxter, lifted quotes from DBKP’s John Edwards Affair: Interview with David Perel, Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer without giving credit to DBKP.
[Nearly 3 days after we alerted the Times to the problem, they still have not acknowledged it. Someone at the Times is aware of the problem, however. Two comments left on the story voicing plagiarism concerns went unpublished, while other comments–submitted later–were. MSM Stealing Blog Content: Times Online Joining Growing MSM Trend?. What we once thought was surely an oversight is now apparently Times’ policy.]
Doug Ross, who discovered the problem, has the story: “Sunday Times runs John Edwards-Mistress-Love Child story, rips off blogosphere”
But, as the Soviet government found out, it’s hard to control the flow of information in the Digital Age. The lesson remains lost on MSM editors, but it’s a lesson that will be taught nonetheless. Media watchers scurry to find a pulse on a MSM that insists on selling a dying product of warmed-over liberal socialism and “all the news we decide you can handle” to the dwindling few who rely on them for “news”.
There’s no pulse on a corpse.
However, the American media blockade of the story is slowly being penetrated. The Hartford Courant’s Kevin Rennie raises a point that MSM editors might consider:
Source: John Edwards, Rielle Hunter Love Child: U.K. Papers Help Break Media Blockade