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.

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

[DanielKPlainview]

'you would have thought Obama had chosen Britney as his running mate."

Except that Britney (Spears) for all of her wel documented shearing exploits (both above and below the belt) is a Bushie.

[speakyourmind]

Doesn't anybody remember when the Enquirer was printing that O.J. was beating his then-wife? It was the same reaction; e.g., they're just the Enquirer, they're never right....blah blah blah. We all know how that turned out.

[Housewife]

well since Huffpo thought the use of a perfectly acceptable word for the stuff you step in after someone has walked their dog and not picked up after it should be censored, I must repeat that I would not use the enquirer to wipe that "stuff" off my shoe.

[Dramaticlookcat]

Do you remember what journalism used to be? The phone calls, the stakeouts, the pencil behind the ear, the muckraking?

Now, it's all about press releases, conference calls, and tony lunches.

The National Enquirer is the nearest thing to the muckrakers of the past, and I think that's why demoralized mainstream journalists resent them so much.

I mean, sure, that's not all the Enquirer is. It is obsessed with finding trash on celebrities, which really doesn't advance our civilization.

But their depth of research and persistence is impressive, and I just wish they'd use all their skills on more serious stories because I think they would surprise and out-scoop all of us.

[HoooooooHah]

wouldn't that be fun to have a serious muckraking national newspaper to compete with the corporate shill rags?

[Jason357]

Good post. It's trendy to trash the National Enquirer, but they do seem to have a very competent infrastructure, NPR used to be like that until the GOP almost shut them down. Now, they're just like the rest. I used to be proud to use my NPR mug.

[HoooooooHah]

hey dave, nice work.

(from an ex-stringer)

[Jason357]

Not to be pushy about CounterPunch, but they had an article about this several days ago and they also put out a book about the death of the fourth estate that's worth reading.

I think the main problem is that Americans have been trained to be lazy in mind and body...to constantly seek out leisure as opposed to labors of love. For the most part, they don't want news that makes them think or respond. More times than not, the government and MSM is just giving an errant society what it demands.

[Gary47]

Sad day in journalism when the National Enquirer gives a rant... and it's true.

[steamboat]

Warren Buffet, the rich billionaire and DEMOCRAT, today said the mainstream media and high-ranking party members knew during the campaign about Edwards's predictament. But sat on it. He said," all Edwards supporters, those who donated $100 to $200 should get together and file a class-action suit v. Edwards to recover their money."

[ClaudiaJean]

Edwards was/is a fool and a liar and another stone-thrower in a house of glass...
While my thoughts (and disappointments) in the man (as a politician, a man, a human...)
I'm more disturbed by anything that gives any credibility to the festering cesspool of human waste that is the National Enquirer (or Harvey Levin & TMZ, or Perez Hilton, or any other vile entity that traffics in the paparazzi, stalkerish, foul realms they call their 'business.')

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

I'm sorry to inform you.... your assessment applies to MOST politicians. I attended many a political functions for my real estate developer employer who developed most of northern New Jersey Hudson River shoreline overlooking NYC.... and way back then, I knew that it didn't really matter which side you're on... it's whether you attended the $1,000-2,000 a plate fundraiser... and what favor you were asking for... ie, building permits, development approval, get out of jail free card.

Many of the politicians used to hit on me... most of them married. I became quite disgusted with politicians in general. The destruction of our country wasn't as prevalent back then.... but when I look back at it... it was already building up to what has become of us now.

[WJones]

Next week, they'll write that Zahara Jolie-Pitt is actually the love child of Brad and Oprah. You can't print trash thoughout your existence and then expect someone to believe you as a credible news source; even when you happen to get one right.

[conniedogs]

NE wants to be established as a credible news source....­PLEEEZZZE! The only reason they were able to catch JE at the hotel was because the kooky mistress was in on the set up. We've heard this story before, Michael Jackson went through it back in 83 when he made it clear that Billie Jean was not his lover and the kid was not his son.

[Whatevah]

I maintain that this is a stupid story that was blown far, far out of proportion. The fact that so many readers are so fascinated by stories of lurid sex is a condemnation of them, not the MSM.

[Vinca]

One of those tabloids, had a big picture of GW Bush on the cover, and a a story about substance abuse, about two months ago

[Bulbul]

A married man , caught cheating on his wife after so many years, has not done it , for the first time. Sadly , it has to happen before . The worse part is, Elizabeth must have the suspicion about it. After all, she is extremely smart.

[AgathaX]

I agree.

[TN]

I disagree. Other than Fox the MSM has backed off of this until Edwards decided to "sing". If they, as a married couple had not weathered loosing a son and were not currently battling stage 4 cancer with 3 children to care for emothionally this wouldn't have been soo big.

[wayoutleft]

if you can't understand why paris hilton is more important than the president- it's ok. the tiny world of MSM print media is there to protect you.