One would think that the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter scandal would trigger an all-out war within the mainstream media as various outlets run with it while others claim "journalistic integrity" and refuse to go down that road.
Instead, it's confined entirely to the Internet. What gives?
Given that John has effectively been busted twice by the National Enquirer, you'd think some media sources would at least pull the old standby, “We’re not claiming this happened, but some are saying...” Nothing, though.
Here's his awkward denial of it (30 seconds in) when a reporter asked Friday if the supposed Rielle Hunter love child would doom his V.P. hopes ...
Why does Edwards get the benefit of the doubt even after being caught in a hotel with Rielle Hunter and the baby? We have some theories:
- Liberal bias (default)
- Too busy worshiping Barack Obama to care (also default)
- A belief that once a presidential candidate drops out of the race, he or she is no longer subject to such scrutiny (despite the fact that the Rielle Hunter scandal was first broken while he was running for president)
- Disdain for celebrity news sources like the Enquirer, despite all the other solid stories (Isaiah Washington's gay tirade, for one) they’ve broken that were eventually picked up by “legitimate” media?
Share
2 Comments
July 31st, 2008 10:54 AM
The lack of media coverage is appalling and more proof of the media's liberal bias. If the person caught doing this was Mitt Romney or Rudy Guliani the story would be in the headlines for weeks and would be an idictment of the conservative movement and all Republicans.
August 1st, 2008 1:41 PM
John,
The entire world knows if it:
Looks like a duck
Quacks life a duck
Walks like a duck
It's a duck