Politics | 07/24/2008 1:15 pm

Why Is the Mainstream Media Keeping John Edwards's Alleged Love Affair a Secret?

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Over the past 24 hours, Internet news sites have been reporting on this week’s explosive National Enquirer story exposing a supposed John Edwards tryst in a Hollywood hotel.

However, with the exception of the Los Angeles Times, a blog from The Washington Post online and cable TV’s Headline News’s Glenn Beck, few of the mainstream media outlets are touching this story.

One Internet outlet, Slate Magazine is also asking the question, poking fun at the media for not covering it and making a direct comparison to the mainstream media frenzy around Senator Larry Craig’s bathroom antics of a couple of months ago. Slate writes:

"So why hasn’t the press commented on the story yet? Is it because it broke too late yesterday afternoon, and news organizations want to investigate it for themselves before writing about it? Or are they observing a double standard that says homo-hypocrisy is indefensible but that hetero-hypocrisy deserves an automatic bye?"

The Huffington Post thinks that Edwards just isn’t prominent enough of a figure anymore for the public to care:

"It sure looks like Edwards is a hypocrite who misrepresented himself by showcasing his wife and kids so prominently in the campaign. But his campaign was unsuccessful. Voters didn’t buy his arguments or his life story as reasons to elect him. In short, nobody cares about this now, except as celebrity gossip. And that’s how it’s going to play when the media picks it up, as it probably will.

"The better question is, should the media have gone after this story more aggressively back during the campaign? Sounds like the answer is yes."

Tell us: Do you feel cheated by the mainstream media for keeping the alleged John Edwards affair a secret?

194 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Funny, I didn’t think M. Chloe Shaw was Suzanne at all. I was caught by the fact that the initials were the same as McCain’s Campaign Staff. But they would not do such a thing, would they? So perhaps M. Chloe Shaw is just some National-Enquirer-loving, Edwards-hating, fidelity-for-all sort of person. And maybe M. Chloe Shaw is actually her name or at least her only handle here. I get so confused when people get more than one handle. I can only have one myself; otherwise I wouldn’t know who I was.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 07/30/2008 11:20 am

e-mail alert

Elizabeth Bennet LOL that is funny. It was just that certain adjective patterns rang a bell or something. I don’t want to insult Ms Shaw, sorry. I am just a girl trying to get along in a big old world that I can’t control, just like the rest of us.

By Frannie Em on 07/30/2008 5:12 pm

e-mail alert

M. Chloe Shaw… “They” say a lot of b.s., never listen to “Them”.

By DeBúrca obj on 07/29/2008 9:25 pm

e-mail alert

The original question was, “Why is the mainstream media keeping John Edwards’ alleged affair a secret.” Because it is not true and it is not news.

By Mugsy Peabody on 07/29/2008 2:48 pm

e-mail alert

I didn’t even know he had an affair, or was even rumored to have an affair. It must not be news unless people want it to be news. It’s probably playing real big on FOX. Anyway, he dropped out of the race, his wife is fighting cancer, and hell, a man having an extramarital affair… since when is that news??

By DeBúrca obj on 07/29/2008 9:07 pm

e-mail alert

Sorry, but the original question was, “do you feel cheated” that the mainstream media is keeping the affair a secret? Well a historian may tell us about Jefferson, FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton, etc..The differences being that during his presidency Clinton was the first that became “public” knowledge through the mainstream media. Personally I don’t feel cheated not knowing, about Edwards. However, if he were on the ballot that would clearly make a difference. As far as our two candidates, it is their responsibility to choose a vice presidential nominee that has a spotless record as they allegedly do.

By kaitlin peters on 08/01/2008 9:42 am

e-mail alert

How right—what a waste of time, who cares about Edwards. If the media is ignoring anything, it is the Countrywide mortgage scandal. Where is the special prosecutor?—where are the indictments? Dodd and the rest of the Democrats who got sweetheart loans should be forced to resign. Again, the hypocrisy is mindboggling. Now, to add insult to injury, the taxpayers are going to pay for their bribes.

By eleanor roche on 07/29/2008 8:52 pm

Thank you, Eleanor, on that we certainly agree.

By Mugsy Peabody on 07/29/2008 8:54 pm

e-mail alert

Since when did anyone listen to the National Enquirer?? I used to make fun of my mother for reading that rag. What are they saying; Edwards had an affair with an extraterrestrial?

By DeBúrca obj on 07/29/2008 9:09 pm

e-mail alert

You know Edwards would have been the only reason I would have voted Democrate…When he dropped out I was upset…if he had an affair he has joined the ranks of many other men not just political men…if he did, shame on him, he is a bad husband and father, if he didnt shame on us for feeding into the rumors. Kennedy had many affairs but that didnt stop him from being a great leader. Edwards if he can stay in the race will make a great President…

By C Hardy on 07/29/2008 10:08 pm

e-mail alert

Deni G’s point is well taken: It would have at least bordered on interesting and intelligent if you had mused that perhaps the media outlets had actually decided to report news and verify accuracy and truth, before they spend the whole week on stuff that matters not a whit to our lives. And, I would add, not putting the story of an allegation of (not illegal) behaviour on the front page is not exactly the same thing as keeping something secret. In the meantime, I would be interested to know how the WoW staff define ‘mainstream media’. As far as a I know the phrase was promoted by Fox, to differentiate itself as the plucky little David against the Giant networks (CBS, NBC, ABC), and members of conservative groups which worry about a vast liberal conspiracy in the media. To them, the phrase is intended as a put-down. In the present context, it appears that the WoW staffers are equating the MSM as, hmmm, the terrestrially-based media (newspapers, television), and the non-MSM as the blogosphere? Frankly, I wouldn’t want to share my life with a politician, as the characteristics that are necessary to be good at politics tend to have downsides for private life. But we ‘hire’ politicians to do a job. I don’t screen my GP’s marital history. I choose my GP because s/he is good at being a GP. Sure, we would love for all the important people in our lives to lead admirable lives- but that’s not going to happen. Which is just as well, because we we aren’t always admirable either.

By Kate Puddlejumper on 07/30/2008 6:38 am

e-mail alert

Yes, I feel sorry for Elizabeth, too, but living in Europe, I think the politicians’ private affairs should remain private as long as they are conducted with discretion (a concept unknown to President Clinton). John Edwards was my favorite candidate, and I voted for him in the primary. Having the choice to do it again, I would vote for him again. I don’t care about his private life and I do not think it is a subject for the media.

By lawrie taylor on 07/31/2008 11:54 am

e-mail alert

Mrs. Edwards hasn’t asked for and doesn’t need your sympathy. And the National Inquirer is not “media,” it is bs. Thanks for chiming in from Europe, since some of our readers don’t seem to think you folks over there understand English. Sigh.

By Mugsy Peabody on 08/01/2008 2:34 pm

e-mail alert

I am surprised and pleased that the mainstream media did not go into high gear reporting on this. This is none of my business.

By Susan Daniels on 07/31/2008 12:06 pm

e-mail alert

Sad to know there is another slimeball politian and man in the world. Wonder why commitments are hard to come by. When you actually enter one the doubt and trust is not 100% there.

By Cindy Gregory on 07/31/2008 12:51 pm