Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

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
John Edwards
© AP
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

Elizabeth Bennett
Oh the calculus of death as a foreign policy matter is an odd one. Compare and contrast: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=38… http://antiwar.com/casualties/ The over one million estimated to have died since the invasion as a result of the invasion include people who died of starvation or lack of medical care arising from the bombing. So it is not as though our proud soldiers were mowing people down at every opportunity. But I still think if you look at the numbers, as brutal as Saddam was as a leader, Saddam wins with the fewest deaths. Even if you ask Iraqis if they are better off now or under Saddam, most of them seem to prefer Saddam. And that does not even get into those who were disabled by the war or who have fled to Syria or Jordan or lost their occupations, property and history. I grew up with WWII vets around me debating whether the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives than it cost. You have to be extremely cautious in deciding whether to go to war, so I know there is a cost benefit analysis often used to justify the most deadly of force. But you have to look at all the facts. Not just the ones that please you.
By Elizabeth Bennett on 08/04/2008 1:33 pm
eleanor roche
If finding a rationalization to keep a murdering dictator in power is what you want to do, then by all means, rationalize away. But I think anyone with any common sense will not prescribe to the notion that Bush is a greater evil than Saddam was. It actually appears that you are the one not looking at all the facts, but just the ones that please you. And I grew up with the memory of family members who were murdered by the Japanese. Maybe if your family had personally witnessed these kinds of otrocities, you might be more emboldened to stop this kind of tyranny at any cost.
By eleanor roche on 08/04/2008 2:31 pm
Elizabeth Bennett
At any cost? I don’t honestly believe you mean that. Murder hundreds of thousands of people to save a few thousand people? That kind of any cost? You are not thinking, you are feeling. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you have to understand that emotional thinking like that is what causes incredible evil. Bin Laden probably thinks that way. Save his view of Islam at any cost. I am sorry that members of your family were killed by the Japanese. It was a terrible, terrible war, with few good answers. It is estimated that 72 million people were killed during World War II, a number I find difficult to fathom. I am afraid we are not going to agree on the concept of whether it was a good idea to invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to remove a murderous dictator who we previously supported. So I wish you well and hope we can agree to disagree.
By Elizabeth Bennett on 08/04/2008 10:15 pm
eleanor roche
With tyranny, it is pay now or pay later, and the cost is always greater when you choose later. If the west had heeded Churchill’s warnings, the “cost” of WWII would have been decreased substantially. This has nothing do with emotions, just reality.
By eleanor roche on 08/05/2008 8:16 am
Mugsy Peabody
Eleanor, the United States isn’t interested in stopping murdering dictators. If we had been, Pol Pot would have been our first priority. But we ignored over 6 million people being murdered, and we knew about that. It wasn’t a secret. Darfur is no secret. Rwanda is no secret. Those were murderous situations we ignored. Why? A three-letter word, o-i-l. We were the ones who put Saddam in power in the first place by meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign foreign nation, just as we did in Chile when the murderous dictator Pinochet was put into power with our help. All the facts? All the facts? Yes, what happened in Nanking, for example, is a nightmare. Atrocities, yes? But Bush is not in charge of the world. And thank god for that. He’s killed hundreds of thousands of citizens in an illegal invasion of Iraq, and that is an atrocity. The stories about Afghan women, true. The stories about Saddam, true. But the stories about Bush? Also true.
By Mugsy Peabody on 08/07/2008 1:13 am
Maurine H
And let’s not forget Iran…where we installed the Shah and then took him down.
By Maurine H on 08/07/2008 6:10 pm
Mugsy Peabody
Oh, now, Mo. We were just being good neighbors….
By Mugsy Peabody on 08/07/2008 6:16 pm
Maurine H
Silly me.
By Maurine H on 08/07/2008 6:27 pm
Deni G
There’s smoke somewhere with John Edwards, or this “story” would never have been printed ” This reminded of when I was in High School. Some girl, who was jealous of, or mad at me, because I was dating a guy she wanted to be dating, spread this ridiculous rumor about me. We only ran into each other at CYO (Catholic Youth Organization) events on the weekends. I went to a a Catholic Girl’s School in another city and she went to public school. So we ran in different circles, even at CYO. The ridiculous rumor, which no one who knew me, thought for a moment was true, flew through her friends and soon to their parents and in no time at all, to mine. My mother called me down to the Living Room and sat me on the couch. She perched across from me, on an silken ivory upholstered chair, her hands folded demurely in her lap. A small frown, ever so slightly creased her forehead. We sat and stared at one another until my father joined us. Then she recited the rumor to me. “This is very distressing and quite embarrassing to me. Explain yourself.” “Nothing to explain. I didn’t do it and she’s crazy.” A long suffering sigh escaped my mother. “you don’t expect me to believe that?” she said. “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, young lady!” I stared back at her, mouth open. “What! Where’s there’s smoke there’s fire! What does that mean? The rumor is a lie. A complete, total, utter and might I add, ridiculous lie. You think it is more likely that I did this, than that some silly girl started a stupid rumor. Where there’s smoke there’s fire? What does that mean!?. ” “That’s good enough for me” my father said and left the room. My mother and I remained, silently sitting and staring, both of us aghast and completely disappointed in the other. And I never have understood, how “where there’s smoke there’s fire” constitutes some sort of explanation or indication of the veracity of a thing. And Ted did not set the tone for bad behavior. That tone existed many many many many years before him. You could look it up.
By Deni G on 08/02/2008 8:09 pm
Linda P
Re: John Edwards’ public confession on 08/08/08 (every TV network in the U.S., beginning with ABC) of his affair with Rielle Hunter. “Where there’s smoke….” I rest my case. Will be interested to see if he has the courage to undergo a paternity test.
By Linda P on 08/09/2008 12:03 pm
Deni G
Mom!
By Deni G on 08/18/2008 4:05 pm
Cara Sims
No, I don’t feel cheated. I think it would be a better world if you and the rest of the “media” took a pass on gossip i.e. supposed and alleged stories a reported real and meangful events. What ever happened to jounalism?
By Cara Sims on 08/01/2008 8:42 am
Anita Varma
I feel sorry for Elizabeth. But i think that it is a private matter between two of them and i do not believe that media should talk about it. Why is that we Americans are so interested in other people personal life?
By Anita Varma on 08/01/2008 8:45 am
Mugsy Peabody
Because they have no lives of their own?
By Mugsy Peabody on 08/01/2008 2:37 pm