All the Scandalous News That's Fit to Print

Politicians lie. The National Enquirer pays for information. The mainstream media is falling out of touch with America.

We hold these truths to be self evident.

And yet when all three of these variables collided in the perfect nexus of the John Edwards cheating affair, the resulting public shock and outcry was so great you would have thought Obama had chosen Britney as his running mate.

After the Enquirer's reports that Edwards had an extramarital affair were finally confirmed by his TV mea culpa, the gnashing of teeth from mainstream journalists was so loud you could barely hear the sobs of everyone who posts for the Daily Kos.

Journalists' reactions ranged from Elitist Defiant ("we were still right not to cover the story because it came from the National Enquirer") to self-flagellation ("we should pursue tips from anywhere") Overall, mainstream journalists engaged in more superficial self-examination than a young Alexander Portnoy (although with far less entertainment value).

Certainly, Edwards, like Portnoy, let his zipper become the center of his universe proving (again) that while truth is stranger than fiction our leading politicians have less depth than most fictional characters. But Edwards did more than torpedo his political career and image; he unwittingly unzipped a new era of how the press will cover scandal and where Americans obtain news.

Story continues below

advertisement

The National Enquirer has been the brand name for scandal for decades, but ever since Al Gore invented the internet (sorry, I can never resist that one) it has been inevitable that the delivery of information would become faster than you can say, "I did not have sex with that woman."

While daily newspapers have struggled to join the digital age and race to put content online, they are still approaching the revolution with antediluvian views that a story isn't news until they say its news. Nothing illustrates this more than the Edwards' scandal.

For months the blogosphere was filled with rumors about Edwards and Rielle Hunter. The low hum of innuendo and suspicion exploded into a roar when the Enquirer published its account of the affair in December, 2007, naming Hunter and printing photographs of her six months pregnant. The Enquirer's report was carried in print and supplemented online.

Slate's Mickey Kaus was relentless in his pursuit of answers, and The Huffington Post -- one of the first to raise questions about Edwards -- stayed with the story even after Edwards gave his now infamous "It's lies, tabloid trash" caught-on-video denial. Daily papers and the TV networks were silent.

So Edwards, the presidential candidate and quintessential family man, continued his campaign and indeed there were two Americas; one where the self-designated mainstream media ignored a scandal that already had been documented in the Enquirer's published account, and the other America where new media asked questions relentlessly about why Rielle Hunter's never-seen "webisodes" for the Edwards campaign and why she was being taken care of by his close friend and hidden in a gated community while six months pregnant.

It wasn't until seven months later when the Enquirer caught Edwards visiting Hunter at the Beverly Hilton Hotel and sneaking out at 2:40 a.m. that mainstream media started to awake. And even then, The Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times and other top newspapers devoted little or no resources to the story. Mickey Kaus begged me to release the photographs of Edwards at the hotel, assuring me the mainstream media would then rush to cover the story. I disagreed and the Enquirer held back most of the photos, waiting for Edwards to deny he was there before showing the images.

Days passed with no TV broadcasts or daily newspaper articles about the scandal, but the blogosphere was blazing with hundreds of reports about Edwards' late-night visit with his mistress and baby and for the first time, the average person was aware of a story that had received no "mainstream media" attention but was thriving on the Web. That simple fact is the true watershed moment of the Edwards affair; it is the bright line demarcating the point when mainstream media's relevancy developed irreparable (and most likely fatal) cracks, when an army of bloggers overran the stodgy elitist guard with the same type of scandal that once turned newspapers and their immortalized Yellow Kids correspondents into daily habits.

When Edwards finally admitted the affair in a faux sincere TV interview, some members of the mainstream media publicly assessed their decisions to not cover the scandal. Forced to acknowledge being beaten by the Enquirer, they referenced the publication specifically, and the blogosphere obliquely, with great asperity.

A newspaper in Indiana wrote: "The story of (Edwards') tryst was reported only by the National Enquirer, a tabloid that gives supermarkets a bad name."

The Los Angeles Times justified its lack of coverage (and ban of bloggers writing about it!) with this quote from one of its editors: "The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that is accurate some of the time and inaccurate some of the time."

Canada's Globe and Mail, raising the level of discourse, claimed it was "icky" that the Enquirer had broken the story. (How do we respond to that? We're rubber, you're glue...)

Meanwhile the New York Times was rebuked by its own ombudsman who strongly concluded the paper blew it by not putting enough effort into reporting the story. Yet, Bill Keller, the Paper of Record's editor, was defiant and still approached the situation with a great sense of ennui, defending his inaction by saying the "hold-your-nose quality about The Enquirer" contributed to the lack of interest by The Times. Others simply relied on standard Elvis-UFO-Aliens-Bigfoot jokes to dismiss the Enquirer's success in light of their failure.

The voice of reason in these matters usually belongs to the Washington Post's media critic Howard Kurtz. His comments encompassed both the Enquirer and the blogosphere as he wrote: "The fact that big newspapers, magazines and networks have standards -- that is, they refuse to print every stray rumor just because it's "out there" -- is one of their strengths. But in the latter stages of this case, it made them look clueless."

Sorry Howard, but those standards are now being determined in cyberspace and any attempt to disparage the populist medium increasingly sounds like a death rattle echoing throughout the pared-down newsrooms of corporate journalism. And while the watershed moment of the shifting balance of media power will prove to be one of the most important byproducts of the Edwards affair it is not my favorite moment.

That distinction is centered on an event from just a few days ago, an event with no connection to Edwards. When two Georgia men claimed to have found Bigfoot and held a press conference to display the remains, the event was ignored by the Enquirer. Bill Keller's New York Times ran a straight-faced account, complete with photograph, in the A section.

All the news that's fit to print? Clueless indeed.

David Perel is the Editor in Chief of the National Enquirer.

Comments

[Swerinjer]

I disagree, because the coverage would have been muted if it was a Republican "scandal". The media is controlled by the right-wing.

[Seven7s]

Pretty much. Especially after the shock of finding out there are republicans out there who actually cheat on their wives.............

.............


.......................with women

[mairs]

If it had been a Republican, Rielle would have been "disappeared" like Iseman and it would have never been mentioned by the MSM again.

[aspertame2]

Hypothetical: There have been long circulating rumors in various political blogs regarding Hillary and her assistant Huma Aberdin. Is that anyone's business? I have no idea if the rumors have any legit base whatsoever, but if true, wouldn't it have much the same implications as the Edwards debacle - sans 'dying wife' and paternity drama, sure, but certainly just as perilous to the DNC chances in November as Edwards' indiscretion? If evidence is present, should it be reported on? Do we base that choice on the likability of a public figure? The stability/ostensible fidelity of their marriage? What?

[tangerinesong]

Yup,

The National Enquirer Rag scooped the best we have in journalism on a blockbuster topic..............pathetic.

[noamjunior]

Yet when the enquirer ean a story that Bush ws DRINKING AGAIN, the MSM would not touch it with a 10 foot pole
google Bush jim beam enquirer

[glesslib]

Perhaps the Enquirer could make this case if it didn't follow hundreds of other stories and report them incorrectly....like who is divorcing whom, who is dying of a rare disease, who just gained 100 pounds, etc. They are like the little boy who cried wolf....when they actually get one right, who is going to believe them?

[RedSt8r]

People.

[AshevilleVoice]

There comes a moment of self reflection, and, if you are blessed, it happens sometime before that split second when death comes. In this piercing spotlight is Mary Oliver's question. What have you done with your one wild and precious life?

And if that answer is, 'I have been the first to report on John Edward's shameful affair, while his wife was dying, so that her last moments upon the earth were spent in shame and seclusion', I wonder, will this bring satisfaction, peace, or joy?

We need to be shocked awake by many things. Who is allowing corporate control of our media? Who is soaking up the wealth of nations? Who is compromising the continuation of life on this planet?

This is the revolution happening in cyberspace that makes a difference. Some bloggers are treading where the MSM cannot.

[ESerafina42]

Excuse me, but while I feel terrible for Elizabeth (my father was also a cheating jerk without any of the redeeming qualities of John Edwards), when she made the decision to support him in his run for the presidency she took that risk. Either a) she was so blinded by her feelings for him (and maybe by ambition) that she thought it would never come out, or b) they counted on people's admiration and sympathy for her to keep it from coming out, which appears to have worked to some extent with the MSM - who would have thunk it? However, the publicity and humiliation would have been 100 times worse and might have actually handed the WH to McCain if Edwards had actually been the nominee.

[Cherubim]

If only the world could read what you have written, dear, Asheville Voice.
I Thank you for posting.

[swooge]

What is sad is that the Edwards story was printed/broadcast at all. When Edwards dropped out of the race his "story" became irrelevant. Who the heck cares what a private citizen who is not running for a public office does?

[isis]

People from the NE should be hired to find Bin Laden

[rangem]

say good night johnboy

[Woggles]

Solid!

[Caroleeena]

And speaking of inept reporting, despite the derisive and snide comments that bounce around even today, Al Gore did not claim that he invented the internet. This is a misleading and out-of-context distortion of a sentence he said in an interview with Lary King that even Snopes.com debunks now. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

The truth is that as late as 1994, I worked for the Secretary of State and everyone worked on individual computers that could not talk to each other. Every computer at the Secretary of State's office was free standing with no connection to the www, even though many citizens now had this "luxury" at home. The Navy had its own internet, the Army had its own internet... only neither of those nets could talk to each other. It was maddening. Al Gore was the person who implemented policies that allowed huge goverment agencies access to the www, in fact, he insisted upon it. I assure you many people fought the change. It took a lot of prompting to make it happen and thank goodness he pushed for it.

I'm about sick of hearing him derided for this hard work and huge milestone. The only thing he was guilty of is clumsy wording. Let's lay to rest that politically motivated bullshittery now, shall we?

[Swerinjer]

This editorial legitimizes the shameful Edwards scandal mongering.

[Cakey4814]

So now since NE wants to be considered a source of news when are they going to dig in McCains background..there's enuff sex, intrigue; lying; adulterly in his background to warrant a front page story; you know his ex crippled wife; etc. This was a smear job and the NE knows it; now it wants to be patted on the back; nothing here..still a rag!!

[TrooAmerican]

You Got it! Tell it like it is!

[Bystander]

If the shoe were on the other foot (a Republican rather than a Democrat), the left would be expressing little if any "moral outrage" at the press that covers it. Liberals seemed to enjoy stories about the sexual misadventures of Vitter and that pervert, Larry Craig. It's hypocritical and further supports the notion that "sexual immorality" is an oxymoron only when it involves liberals.

No big surprise, of course.

[camb94]

That is ONLY because it is the right (Republicans) that espouse their commitment to Family Values, anti-gay rhetoric, etc. It is the joy in finding hypocrisy that the left enjoys seeing it. THEREFORE, since the left, has constantly argued that people's private lives shouldn't be legislated, etc., a "fallen" person of the left is of little interest, since, most people on the left expect it. It is only when the holier than thou folks fall that it is of any interest. Therefore, it is not hypocrisy that the left is invoking, but only the irony in seeing the hypocrisy of others.

[Bystander]

I's hypocrisy.

[Liberal2]

Ohhhh, another reichwing troll who is either a liar (by omission) or a fool. The difference, oh person of few neurons and even fewer morals, is your claim to be the party of perfect morals, perfect ethics, and all the family values. So when you blowhards are proven to be immoral, unethical, family valueless....you prove you deserve to be laughed at. Edwards never pounded his chest, demanding all follow his perfect rules of conduct.

Two words: GROW.....UP!!!!

[Bystander]

Immorality crosses party lines. People who preach morality but practice immorality are hypocrits. The pervert, Larry Craig, earned the heaps of negative press he received, and the liberals, understandably, enjoyed it. He deserved what he got. But when the likes of John Edwards is exposed, liberals whine, "it's personal, just between him and whomever...leave him alone!" That's hypocricy.

Generally speaking, "sexual immorality" is an oxymoron among the far left...when applied to transgressing liberals, of course. I'm sure you agree.

[ESerafina42]

Well, he certainly used his "wonderful" marriage and devotion to his family in his presidential bid.

[ProfessorDuh]

Being a public nuisance and trying to pick up cops in men's rooms is a crime. And especially creepy.

[glesslib]

Well honey, you certainly have lots of material to choose from. We enjoy the stories so much because the right is the guardian of all our morals, don't you know? The right is above all this. The right is busy loving God and country and doesn't have time for sins of the flesh.

It's the utter hypocrisy of it all that is so entertaining. Nothing like finding a big old hypocrite with his pants down.

[beread]

I started my career with another "infamous" paper, the Manchester Union-Leader. I learned that news is what's new, and that if you get a news lead you go after it, no matter what it is.

That definition of news today includes the behavior of public figures because their actions demonstrate their character and values as individuals. When you are in the spotlight (I know, I once ran for city council) everyone sees you, warts and all, and forms judgements on what they see that goes into deciding whether they want to vote for you.

What gets me--and why I tip my press-tagged hat to the The National Enquirer and the blogosphere for uncovering and going after this--is the hubris and stupidity of those who run for and are in public office who think that they can blissfully get away with outrageously questionable behavior when they are in the public spotlight in this day and age. It is one thing to have had marriage troubles--life does happen--it is another to go around with the pants unzipped.

[Scott1560]

Can relate (just not able/willing to name the rag)............

Major kudos to the Enquirer as they do it old-school, that is, know how to run surveillance, knock on doors, do research and can actually understand the material they read (even if it comes out of a garbage dumpster). True investigative journalism!

I've been on both ends of the bias. I've had stories where my editor loved every inch of dirt I uncovered and others where the dirt sort of contradicted claims & opinions made by the paper. The bias is real and so are the party hats or tongue lashes depending upon how well the evidence supports or disputes the editor's/owner's slant/bias.

But I also have a problem w/the Enquirer's shotgun approach, the stories that are so sensational that they go unsourced, get published just to sell papers.

[candymancan]

I have to admit, I was so caught up in this story since August 8 and bloggin about it. But today, I have had enough. Don't you have any consideration for a woman who has incurable cancer? She can live anywhere from 6 months to 8 years - can't you just leave her to go in peace or like another blogger said - just put it all out there like the finale to a firework show so every can applause and congratulate and then end it? This woman does not need the stress - that's why she stood by her man. It's easier to do that than to put her children thru a nasty divorce. A week ago I thought she should divorce him, but now I think she shouldn't - but they should arrange their finances so that John only has access to a limited amount, enough to live comfortably till the end of his life and channel everything to their 3 children. If she divorces him, she stands to live the rest of her short life having to put up with a bimbo as the step-mother of her children. Right now, John E. is stil under that mumbo jumbo woman's smoke. Without the "rich and famous" which was what this fortune "Hunter" was after, she'll just fade away! I can't wait till the day she releases a book deal or go on talk shows to blap - by then the sympathy would have been with John.