AND MORE NEW: JUST TO PILE ON the Silky Pony, this from doubleplusundead.
MORE NEW! Post (AoSHQ) from Ace:
I really can't fucking believe the media is now deciding whether to report big stories of national scope based on whether someone they like might be distressed by their reportage.
Of course I can believe it; I have to believe it. It's what they're doing, obviously.
I guess the New York Times didn't like Cindy McCain all that much when it reported on McCain's non-affair with his non-paramour.
Should media organizations be required to disclose which people they "like" and wish to "protect," and which people they "don't like" and "don't wish to protect," so that we might know beforehand where their biases may lie?
Seems like a bona fide conflict of interest, more so than many others. If the media is in the tank for Elizabeth Edwards, we need to know that, in order to properly evaluate their coverage of her husband.
As Ann Coulter said in the column (see below) that started this post, if this had been Mitt Romney, the media would have been camped on his front lawn since the first mention, chasing his wife through the supermarket and accosting his grandkids at their elementary schools to "get the TRUTH!" And it would have mattered not-at-all that he was no longer in the running for the nomination or was not currently in some political/public service position.
FATS WALLER & HIS RHYTHM (1936) -- "It's A Sin To Tell A Lie"
NEW! 08-08-08: AoSHQ by DrewM "Edwards Admits Affair, *NUANCE* But Denies Child"
John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extramarital affair with a novice filmmaker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.
As one of the commenters puts it: "Well, that puts the whole 'love child' thing to rest."
Ann Coulter on the non-coverage of the John Edwards (alleged) love-child scandal (which is just a microcosm of the problems of most of today's media coverage).
A Washington Post reporter defended the total blackout on the National Enquirer's John Edwards' love child story, telling the Times of London: "Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage." This was the perfect guy to talk to because if there's one thing they're careful about in London, it's tabloid excess.
Isn't there some level of coverage between "wall-to-wall" and "double-secret probation, delta-force level total news blackout" when it comes to a sex scandal involving a current Democratic vice presidential and Cabinet prospect?
Hey, what sort of "elected official" was Ted Haggard again? He was the Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year. Then he suddenly became the Pope of the Protestants. And yet, despite the fact that Haggard was not an "elected official," the Post gave that story wall-to-wall coverage. And what sort of "elected officials" were Mel Gibson, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett?
I assume it would be jejune to point out that the MSM would be taking the wall-to-wall approach, rather than the total blackout approach, to the love child story if it were a story about Mitt Romney's love child or, indeed, Larry Craig's love child. They'd bring Ted Koppel out of retirement to cover that. Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson would be anchoring the evening news from Romney's front yard. They might even get Dan Rather to produce some forged documents for the occasion.
So true, especially the fourth paragraph. Read the rest here.
UPDATE: Heh - Tim Blair: Unknown Story Referenced.