<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<oembed>
	<version>1.0</version>
	<type>link</type>
	<objectid>115295</objectid>
	<title><![CDATA[Why Won't The Media Cover Edwards? Because They Don't Have To Yet.]]></title>
	<url>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/30/why-wont-the-media-cover_n_115295.html</url>
	<abstract><![CDATA[<p>With the exception of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/10/scrubbed-edwards-filmmake_n_67868.html">this</a> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/26/edwards-mystery-innocuous_n_66070.html">site</a>, the <i><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/19/national-enquirer-enters-_n_77603.html">National Enquirer</a></i> and <b>Mickey Kaus</b>, the media has been virtually mum on the matter of <b>John Edward's</b> alleged mistress and her alleged baby that's allegedly his.</p>

<p>It was understandable, really. First, when it bubbled to the surface, it came as innuendo, a lot of circumstantial evidence and unconfirmed implications. Second, the source was the <em>National Enquirer</em>, which &amp;mdash; <a href="http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/25/edwards/index.html">fair or not</a> &amp;mdash; gave decision-makers in the media license to<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/07/21/DI2008072101782.html">...</a></p>]]></abstract>
	<taxonomy><![CDATA[Media]]></taxonomy>
	<date_published>2008-08-07T05:12:00-04:00</date_published>
</oembed>
