I really respected John Edwards, this is a severe disappointment.

Also – hello again, CFLF!

Who knows. And who cares at this point. Edwards is an idiot, you got your scalp and the MSM reported it. Every winger should be happy. Now given the media cycles, coverage of this story will be buried for two reasons: 1) The Olympics (which is cliche), and 2) Russia’s growing war with Georgia. As far as I’m concerned, since innocent people are being bombed in the latter story, I’d be ashamed if the media pays more attention to Edwards than that.

(Of course, Putin plays the same game Edwards does — release news right as the Olympics open and hope the games buries it.)

Maybe there is a silver lining here, though. Edwards isn’t the nominee and I don’t see how this damages Obama. The Republicans, however, do have a nominee with a clear history of marital infidelity, including a sick and disfigured wife who he dumped for a 25-year old heiress. McCain had good reason to make no comment on the Edwards fiasco. His own history is strikingly similar, or even worse.

Is the genie out of the bottle? Will the media explore McCain’s history now?

I don’t think the media hasn’t reported this story because it’s boring. There’s just no story.
Honestly Craig, do you think that no MSM reporter or editor has checked this story out to see if it has any legs? Any credibility at all?

Tas, I’d say you were very clearly stating above that the story must not be true.

Furthermore, you keep trying to put my argument into some extremists position on this issue. That certainly makes it easier to argue against, but it has NOTHING to do with my specific point. I made a very rational, measured, clear-thinking comment on this issue. Maybe you should read it a few more times. I have NEVER said that the original Enquirer article should have been accepted as the truth. I have NEVER said the MSM should have just accepted the Enquirer story and run with it. Please try to show me where I have said so.

Funny thing, usually in a debate between two people, you base each other’s counter-point on the specific points that the other person is making.

First off, I accused wingers of relying on solely the National Enquirer for the truth to be morons. Let’s face it, if you believed the Edwards story only because the Enquirer said so, you’d have to believe in all the other shit they irresponsibly print, too. So until you’re ready to believe that Bush is drinking again, shut your trap.

Secondly, when this story initially came out, the Enquirer had no visuals or audio posted on the web to accompany it — which was another red flag beyond the fact that it was in the fucking Enquirer. Later on, the pictures they released sucked so much that even Allahpundit said they could have very well been photoshopped.

Third, as I said before, the MSM wasn’t going to run with the story unless they could confirm it from another source besides the Enquirer. It’s the same rules for otther stories the Enquirer broke — I mentioned Rush Limbaugh as an example.

At the time the Enquirer initially released this story and the crickets it produced afterwards, since nobody could confirm it, the story looked like a steaming load. Could it have been true? Yes, but the Enquirer didn’t do anything to make a reasonable reader trust them. You morons, on the other hand, wanted the MSM to run with this story despite those conditions.

Furthermore…

Last year, Alan Butterfield, one of the writers behind the Edwards story, wrote about Ted Kennedy’s alleged “love child” and was subsequently sued by the baby’s mother. Butterfield was also sued for an article which alleged that actor Ben Affleck cheated with strippers while famously dating Jennifer Lopez. Five years ago he was also involved in a scandal which developed at the Salt Lake Tribune.

The Tribune “fired two reporters who were paid $20,000 for collaborating with the National Enquirer on an Elizabeth Smart story because they misled their employer about the level of their involvement with the tabloid,” the Associated Press reported in 2003. In addition, “the story ha[d] been retracted as part of a settlement between the Smart family and the tabloid.”

If that’s the kind of integrity you place your trust in, then it’s no wonder you’re such a douchebag. And just because a reporter manages not to step in it for one of his stories doesn’t mean skeptics should eat crow.

It seems that somewhere between your name-calling and obscenity-laced rants you gave your assurances that:

-only morons would give the smallest credit to a story that was initially broken by the Enquirer, because as anyone intelligent knows, they produce nothing but trash.

-since no reputable media players (other than those heathens at Fox) had confirmed anything about the story immediately afterwards, it should be painfully obvious to all but the smallest mental midgets that the story is bogus. Because, clearly, every outlet would have thoroughly investigated it immediately and just as quickly would have published confirmation.

-anyone who questions these truths, spoken by a true journalist, simply doesn’t know their proper place in discussing how the media works, when talking to a professional.

Let’s review the only, very subdued, point I was trying to make on this story. The Enquirer has a very well-earned reputation for loony, trashy stories. However, they have broken some key stories involving Jessie Jackson, Gary Hart, Rush Limbaugh, and O.J. Simpson, among others. Because of this, one couldn’t simply completely dismiss the Edwards story just because of who broke the news. If it was simply smoke, it would be evident fairly soon. But sometimes smoke leads to a fire. Which would also become evident.

That was it. No cries (from me) about media bias. No immediate accusations that the story was true.

Enjoy your meal, but be careful of those bones!

upon re-reading of my comment, it sounds like the $50 i gave to you for the link! no, you can keep that…

I could give a toss about the sex. It’s not news. But the lack of judgment on Edwards’ part is disturbing, especially considering how much support he enjoyed during the primaries. The fact that he could delude himself into thinking that the secret of his infidelity would somehow survive the campaign season intact is astounding.

As to whether his political career is over, two words:

John McCain.

Ahem.

Nifty time for Edwards to annouce it, too — friday night, Olympic opening ceremonies about to air… Too bad his morality isn’t as impeccable as his sense of timing.