National Enquirer Vindicated — And Validated — By MSM Embrace Of Edwards Scoop

Wall Street Journal:

For most of the 10 months since allegations of former Sen. John Edwards's extramarital affair appeared in the National Enquirer, the story was marginalized, partly because much of the media has a dismissive attitude toward the publication that broke it.

They ignored the story at their peril, forgetting that amid the unflattering celebrity photos and overblown headlines, the Enquirer, a supermarket tabloid owned by publisher American Media Inc. has a track record of scoops, including some about politics. And this time it found an unlikely ally: a group of Internet voices driven less by political ideology than by a view of the mainstream press as out of touch.

The Enquirer, which has been reporting the story for nearly a year and which first published it last October, was vindicated Friday when Mr. Edwards admitted to the affair to Walt Disney Co.'s ABC News. (Mr. Edwards has denied other elements of the Enquirer's reports, including that he is the father of the woman's child.) News of the former Democratic senator's admission subsequently was splashed across most major newspapers. It was the first time many of those publications, including The Wall Street Journal, had weighed in on the topic.

Not so in the blogosphere, where a stable of voices on sites such as Washington Post Co.'s Slate, Huffington Post and Drudge Report had recognized the possibility that the story might be true and questioned the old guard's inaction. Unlike previous scandals fueled by partisan politics, this one blurred political lines. It was the left-leaning Huffington Post that began investigating the relationship between Mr. Edwards and the woman, Rielle Hunter, around the time the first Enquirer story was published last year.

"New media really helped keep this story alive," the Enquirer's Editor in Chief David Perel said. He added that the online voices that propagated the story aren't as willing to dismiss the Enquirer's story as "tabloid trash," as Mr. Edwards is.

Read the whole story: Wall Street Journal

Comments

[libbygirl]

I guess we'll have to continue to depend on The National Enquirer to give us the whole story. I don't think other media will stay on this....for one reason or another.

[Hecate08]

The MSM just hates it when the National Enquirer is right. This is not the first time they have been right on a major story. The MSM has no decent investigative reporters left. Television has nothing but airheads reading and the printed media is not much better. I think all they do is read the latest AP headlines and regurgitate them. I think the AP reporters should be getting raises. Without them, bloggers and the National Enquirer, we'd never know what's going on.

[bujeeboo]

I agree with you on your essential point, but let's not exaggerate: prying into salacious matters like extramarital affairs takes no journalistic skill no matter who is prying. You only need to want to pry.

[Tator]

When people are asked...What is more dangerous than money in politics...drum roll....LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS. Now you moonbats think about this....you say it does not exists yet when Americans are polled they say Liberal Media bias is the real problem....shows who lives in LALALALAnd and it is not the regular American.

" Voters overwhelmingly believe that politicians will “break the rules to help people who give them a lot of money,” but most say there’s a bigger problem in politics today—media bias. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 55% believe media bias is more of a problem than big campaign contributions. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree and think that campaign cash is a bigger problem. People believe media bias is a bigger problem even though 63% believe most politicians will break the rules to help campaign contributors.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

[WoodyCPM]

So because 55% of those polled believe that "media bias is more of a problem than big campaign contributions" you've decided that what was in their heads in answering that question was "the press is too liberal"? This is a classic example of projecting your own ideological prejudices on what is essentially value neutral data. Those who answered that media bias is a problem could just as likely been thinking that the press is too conservative. You're just regurgitating the same memes, inplanted by the cabal of Republican operatives and their corporate masters into the mainstream media that is that the media is liberal". You're ideas are the result of the same mendacious propaganda as you think you're decrying in the mainstream press. In other words you're drinking the Kook-Aid and then jumping to the wrong conclusions about what the polling data indicate.

[Tator]

HAHAHA You might want to check a poll where they ask "Is the press to Liberal or to Conservative?"...the numbers are so lopsided "Liberal " it is staggering....look I understand your inability to see the obvious. When your a moonbat Liberal and you hear the News reported "as a moonbat Liberal reporter" tells it ...it sounds NORMAL....talk about DUH!

[Topfeeder]

Whoot! Now I can buy my Enquirer and not be embarrassed. I am reading NEWS, bishes.

[Destin]

2 things the MSM won't report on, which leaves the NE without any validation or vindication at all, more like INCRIMINATION. ;)

1. Who fed them the info that Edwards would be where he was? And was there a government agency involved?

2. They admit to faking the hotel room pictures that accompanied the story, so why doesn't the MSM report that as being faked??

[67yrolfe]

It's obvious who fed the NE the info. Howard Wolfson is now saying that Hillary would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year. Can't say they didn't try! Who is Wolfson kidding? The Clinton campaign knew about the Edwards affair and leaked it to the National Enquirer so no one would be suspicious that they leaked it. When Edwards kept denying it nobody took it serious because it was the National Enquirer. What the public didn’t know and the corporate MSM wasn’t going to tell us and is still not telling us is that “A key owner of the National Enquirer is a prominent New York investment banker and one of Hillary Clinton’s key backers, Roger Altman. Altman was an official in the first Clinton administration and his name is often mentioned as a possible Clinton Treasury Secretary”. Can’t let the cat out of the bag now! It might ruin Hillary’s chances of stealing the nomination away from Obama at the convention.

[Destin]

You forget the Weirders and the current American Media CEO, are all neocons who suppressed information on Ahnold to help install him in the California throne in an attempt to make it a red state. Then turned around and gave him those free editorials in their magazines. Remember all that?? ;)

So it's Roger Altman, with neocon elements, who I believe were the ones responsible for revealing all this stuff about Edwards, TWO YEARS after it was all settled, according to Mrs Edwards. It's nothing more, than a political powerplay, to weaken the Dem position in the upcoming election, as well as try to win a spot for H R C in some lofty position within the administration. Plus, can't ignore the fact that the Department of Homeland Spying probably had a hand in knowing when, where and who was gonna be at the Beverly Hilton that night, as it is illegal for regular citizens, and news outlets, to spy on US citizens. Only the govt can do it, and disseminate the info. ;)

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
2. They admit to faking the hotel room pictures that accompanied the story, so why doesn't the MSM report that as being faked??
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{

Cite????

Michale.....

[Destin]

You missed last week's interview with Anderson Cooper, when he had the man from the NE who was there at the Beverly Hilton. And when pressed by Cooper, "Oh, you were in the room with them?". The guy admitted that they were never in the room at all. Rather, they had staked out the room and were never inside.

[fishsandwichesr2good]

This is an invalidation of the MSM more so than a validation the NE.

[Cakey4814]

The Nat'l Enquirer is still a rag..no vindication nor validation as far as I'm concerned. If you keep throwing at a dart board eventually you will hit the bullseye but that still doesn't dismiss marks made when you missed your target. I can't count how many times this rag has been sued and lost..don't legitmize this rag just because they finally got the scoop on someone and it happened to be true..more misses than hits!!

[marymansour]

I remember years ago during the OJ Simpson trial, that one of my favorite authors, Dominick Dunne, covered that trial. He was on television often during the trial and told several interviewers that the Enquirer was the one that had the most pertinent scoops as a rule and the MSM guys would take note of them.

[yabu]

The MSM should absolutely NOT cover bullshit stories like this one. Edwards' affair has no impact on other people's life one way or the other therefore it has no value as news whatsoever.

[fishsandwichesr2good]

Um, is someone who violated a sacred trust and probably broke campaign finance laws a person you would have liked to see as the AG of the US? Liberal apologist much?

[TexasDem0]

Does that include violating the sacred trust to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States, which current Attorney General Mukasey refuses to do, in direct conflict with his oath of office?

[marymansour]

I have to argue with you there, yabu. If he had not been running for president at the time and using his campaign funds, it might not warrant a blowout. But he deceived his supporters and the Democrats when he kept going in spite of the fact of his affair and baby mama.

[MBryant]

hmmm...

I wonder if this so much vindicates and validates the Enquirer as it says things about the mainstream media (and HuffPo for that matter). Like the "missing blonde girl" stories, the MSM seems to recognize this a "sullied story" they are reluctant, they want a photos, but when they can resist no longer it's "go for it" time and a single front page story isn't enough, we need timelines and reactions from world leaders and Paparazzi photos and etc... In other words for this kind of story - they turn into the National Enquirer.

John Edwards is a public figure and people are interested in this - it needs covereage. But is it an "olympic sized" story? Deserving more coverage than breaking news? I don't think so. True this story probably should have run earlier. This much coverage of old news shows just how weirdly salacious and hung up the MSM is - not how "right" the NE is.