From Byron York:
Is that the result of a group sentiment among journalists? Or have they been under explicit orders not to mention the story? We’ve heard about one such directive, at the Los Angeles Times website. But there are probably others out there. In today’s news environment, executives have to take more explicit steps than in the past if they want to rein in stories. Journalists have multiple platforms; they might mention a story in a newspaper article, a web piece, in a blog, on video, on television, or on radio. For news executives to make sure the Edwards story does not appear on any of an organization’s several platforms, they have to make sure that tight controls are in place. The Edwards story is not invisible by accident. ...
But at the bottom of it all, there’s still the mystery of why so many journalists have thus far refused to even mention a spectacularly scandalous story involving a top national politician. Perhaps it’s partisanship and bias — there’s certainly some of that involved — but perhaps it is also elitism. No top-rank journalist wants to be associated with the National Enquirer. But whatever the reason, with the Democratic convention approaching, the time in which they have been able to keep a lid on the story is probably coming to a close. The public will learn the news, despite the best efforts of some top news organizations.
What's amazing about this story is not what a slimeball John Edwards is, but rather how the mainstream media journalists are still trying to tank it while their parent companies are rapidly going bankrupt.