Tom McMahon

The Double-Secret Probation, Delta-Force Level Total News Blackout On John Edwards

From Ann Coulter:

A Washington Post reporter defended the total blackout on the National Enquirer's John Edwards' love child story, telling the Times of London: "Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage." This was the perfect guy to talk to because if there's one thing they're careful about in London, it's tabloid excess.

Isn't there some level of coverage between "wall-to-wall" and "double-secret probation, delta-force level total news blackout" when it comes to a sex scandal involving a current Democratic vice presidential and Cabinet prospect?

Hey, what sort of "elected official" was Ted Haggard again? He was the Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year. Then he suddenly became the Pope of the Protestants. And yet, despite the fact that Haggard was not an "elected official," the Post gave that story wall-to-wall coverage. And what sort of "elected officials" were Mel Gibson, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett?

Hush Money

Quote Of The Day is from Jay Leno: "The National Enquirer reports that John Edwards' mistress is receiving $15,000 a month in hush money. No word on how much the mainstream media is getting."

The John Edwards Scandal: The Silence Of The News

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.

Questions About The Edwards Affair

From just muttering:

• An error in judgment???  He betrayed his family's trust and he lied, a lot.  How is that like choosing brands of string beans or butter?
• He says he didn't love Rielle Hunter.  How does that make it better?  How will that play with Hunter?
• He says Elizabeth's illness was in remission when he had the affair with Hunter.  How does that help?
• He says the affair has been "over for a long time."  (a) How does that help given the egregiousness of his lying and (b) are we really supposed to believe it's been over a long time when he was seen and photographed coming out of Hunter's room in the Beverly Hills Hilton two weeks ago?
• He says he's not the father of Hunter's baby; he says Andrew Young is the father.  Huh?!  Was Hunter the campaign's night-time groupie??  How many people in Edwards' campaign did she sleep with?  Is she following the troops?  Are we really supposed to believe this?? 
• He says he doesn't know who's been paying Hunter or covering her hotel bills around the country.  One's credulity is strained.  And anyway, why does she stay in hotels instead of her own house or apartment?
• If Young is the father and the affair is long over, why was John Edwards visiting Hunter's room in the Beverly Hills Hilton just two weeks ago?
• Edwards says he'll take a paternity test.  Risky challenge, that.  Remember Gary Hart's "follow me" invitation?

The Role Of The Media In The John Edwards Scandal

From Ace:

Job One: Reassure the public you knew all about this and are hardly surprised, because you don't want them to think you're so out of the f***ing loop this snuck up on you. So everyone's in "Oh, of course I knew, it was all so obvious!" in-the-know cool-kid mode.

Job Two: The trickier one-- attempt to explain how it can be you knew all about this but didn't report it, or bother to do the minimum threshold of follow-up. Bear in mind, the National Enquirer is a small outfit.  When they assign three or four people to a story, that's a substantial fraction of their entire component of reporters and photographers. 

It's nothing for a network news organization to assign three or four people to a story -- they've got hundreds of unpaid interns chomping at the bit to do something besides edit and fetch coffee, for God's sakes. So even if they didn't want to send a reporter, they could have sent a dozen recent graduates out there to get the story... which they would have gotten. This was not exactly a Phillip Marlowe murder mystery here.

Note that Job One and Job Two are basically impossible to square in any satisfactory manner. But they're quite righteous and smugly self-complimentary about both.

The Progression Of Left-Wing Talking Points For A Democratic Party Sex-Scandal

From Kaus:

1. Too horrible and shocking; it can't possibly be true;
2. It's not true;
3. You can't prove it's true;
4. Why are you trying to prove it's true?
5. It's disgusting that you've proved it's true;
6. What's the big deal anyway?

We're all pretty familiar with this by now, eh?

It Drains Too Much Of The Life From Life

An excerpt from Charles Murray:

For most people--including many older people who in their youths focused on vocation--life acquires meaning through the stuff of life: the elemental events associated with birth, death, growing up, raising children, paying the rent, dealing with adversity, comforting the bereaved, celebrating success, applauding the good and condemning the bad; coping with life as it exists around us in all its richness. The chief defect of the welfare state from this perspective is not that it is ineffectual in making good on its promises (though it is), nor even that it often exacerbates the very problems it is supposed to solve (though it does). The welfare state is pernicious ultimately because it drains too much of the life from life.