Johnny B. Bad
Cidu Bill on Aug 8th 2008
John Edwards, who was (but is no longer) a U.S. senator, and who was (but is no longer) a presidential candidate, admitted today that he had an affair with a 42-year-old filmmaker. He will discuss the affair on ABC’s Nightline tonight.
This is all front page news because…?
Filed in Bill Bickel, John Edwards, Nightline, adultery, news, politics | 21 responses so far
Patrick Aug 8th 2008 at 04:12 pm 1
Because . . . if I had an affair while my wife was fighting breast cancer I would be known as a scum bag around my office or town or, at least, neighborhood. When a nationally known figure does it, he becomes known as a scumbag nationally. That’s all it is.
And this should have nothing to do with our own personal politics. Scumbags are scumbags whether Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or anythign else.
Count Shrimpula Aug 8th 2008 at 04:32 pm 2
It’s front page news because SEX!!!
Duh.
Eric Goebelbecker Aug 8th 2008 at 04:39 pm 3
It’s front page news because it doesn’t require any guts to cover a guy having an affair, especially if his wife is famous *and* has cancer. Bonus points!
The real news? Covering that could lead to criticism and lower ad revenues. Too scary.
Rasheed Aug 8th 2008 at 05:52 pm 4
Also because there’s the belief he fathered a child with this woman.
Brian Leahy Aug 8th 2008 at 06:32 pm 5
You missed a shot for a 3-fer:
“… admitted today that he was (but is no longer) sleeping with a 42-year-old filmmaker.”
rusty Aug 8th 2008 at 07:07 pm 6
Its newsworthy because 1) his name keeps coming up for a possible VP slot or other position in Obama’s putative administration, 2) he’s flatly denied the rumors for the past 18 months, and 3) he ripped Bill Clinton over the same character flaw. He should have kept his mouth shut, the media had his back:
From: “Pierce, Tony” [LA Times Editor]
Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT
Subject: john edwards
Hey bloggers,
There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.
If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don’t hesitate to ask.
Keep rockin,
Tony
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=EC0E51B1-F3DA-4F8E-B4D1-0A0D1F3797D2
Cidu Bill Aug 8th 2008 at 07:19 pm 7
A Los Angeles Time editor is advising people what they should and shouldn’t write about??? That’s wrong on so many levels, I hardly know what to say.
Eric Goebelbecker Aug 8th 2008 at 07:36 pm 8
The “wrong” would come in if they listened. He can advise people whatever he wants, if people listen to him, it’s their own damn fault.
I don’t really understand the idea that this story is newsworthy because Edwards’ name had come up as a possible running mate. His name comes up because the news readers and pundits mention it. He has said he’s not interested and I certainly haven’t heard of anyone in the Obama camp name anyone as a possibility, let alone Edwards.
So in other words, it’s newsworthy because the people who make up the news say it is.
Cidu Bill Aug 8th 2008 at 07:43 pm 9
Eric, I just think it’s inherently wrong for a newspaper editor to make that suggestion at all, to anybody other than his immediate staff.
Dave Aug 8th 2008 at 08:00 pm 10
The sad part is that the major media avoided the story like the plague because it was a fellow liberal Democrat, like themselves. They knew that Pretty Boy John was on a short list for Veep for the other Pretty Boy (Obama). They didn’t want to taint either one just because the National Enquirer (a tabloid that has gone straight and gets the facts right) had an exclusive story. It was only after the DNC told Johnny Boy to either publically deny or confirm the alligations. So I guess he finally confessed, half-assed of course. Why was he there hiding in the bathroom from NE photographers? Someone tipped the NE and they caught the guy red handed. But the only places where you heard about it until today were NE, Drudge and Fox News. No other media outlets (like Communist News Network) would ever think of reporting such a story. That would damage their potential presidential candidate of choice (hint: it ain’t McCain). So that’s why this is news: 1) the scandal itself and 2) the scandal behind the scandal.
solarrhino Aug 8th 2008 at 10:51 pm 11
I think its disingenuous to emphasize that Edwards is not longer a senator or a Presidential candidate. While both things are true, it’s not as though Edwards voluntarily withdrew from public life. He quit the senate to focus on his presidential bid; then he lost. I doubt, however, that his political ambitions are over. He may or may not have been interested in the VP spot (I’m pretty sure “He has said…” is not a good argument either way anymore), but there’s good reason to believe that he was interested in being AG; and he certainly wants a spot at the convention. Otherwise, why would he care if the party wanted him to come clean?
To me, the interesting this about this story, and so many other stories involving the powerful and famous, is their apparent inability to learn from the mistakes of others. Half of America doesn’t care what you do; and the other half will happily forgive almost any “mistake” if you just admit it and say you’re sorry. But lie about it and get caught, and might well kill your career. This has nothing to do with politics. Look at the steroids issue in baseball for a glaring example of the same thing. Petit and Giambi, both admitted users, are still playing ball, and nobody says boo. Meanwhile, Clemens has become an national punchline, and nobody seems willing hire Barry Bonds even for the league minimum.
Even now, Edwards doesn’t seem to have learned this lesson, and is still trying to spin things. If the affair was over, her baby isn’t his, and he wasn’t paying her off, then what the hell was he doing visiting her hotel room in the middle of the night without his wife’s knowledge? Reminiscing over old times?
Seth Finkelstein Aug 9th 2008 at 04:18 am 12
Bill, he IS only talking to his immediate staff - that’s for LA TIMES staff bloggers, not bloggers throughout the world.
Sal Aug 9th 2008 at 10:53 am 13
It’s probably front page news for the same reason it’s showing up on Comics I Don’t Understand.
Cidu Bill Aug 9th 2008 at 02:25 pm 14
Seth, the Times hires its own bloggers? Isn’t that the same thing as columnists, then? I’m afraid I just don’t understand the Brave New World of 21st century journalism.
DPWally Aug 9th 2008 at 07:21 pm 15
The LA Times editor is referring to blogs that are written by its reporters and (probably) published on its website, but are outside editorial control. He’s asking them not to blog about the topic, he wouldn’t have to ask them not to report about it.
I can think of 2 explanations for news organizations with news blogs:
1. “We need to be cool and with-it. Someone write a blob.”
2. They can publish a large number of stories quickly without the time and expense needed to bring them up to publishable quality and standards.
Charlene Aug 9th 2008 at 08:19 pm 16
I’ve actually read comments this week, hundreds upon hundreds of them, claiming that Edwards wasn’t in the wrong to have an affair because his wife “let him down” by not looking like a porn star, not hiding her intelligence or abilities, and self-centeredly allowing herself to come down with breast cancer.
I kid you not.
The same gang of fools said the same things about Elliot Spitzer, John McCain, and Bill Clinton.
Charlene Aug 9th 2008 at 08:20 pm 17
Well, perhaps not exactly the same things, but the same general idea: when a famous man cheats, it’s his wife’s fault.
Charlene Aug 9th 2008 at 08:49 pm 18
News organizations feature blogs for a number of reasons.
Some are an attempt to create dialogue among readers about the content of articles. On the New York Times’s Bitten blog readers can discuss Mark Bittman’s columns and videos, debate food ethics, and provide information to their fellow readers about how well recipes work.
Some are an attempt to go behind the scenes in almost a “Making Of” sense. The Washington Posts’s “Post Mortem” goes into how obituary subjects are chosen, the differences in fact verification and tone between American and British newspaper obituaries (the British generally consider eyewitness testimony of what someone said as reliable, whereas the Americans want corroboration).
Some will tell stories from a different, more personal angle than in the straight news section. Dan Lett has been covering a public inquiry about police corruption in Winnipeg. His stories cover the facts of the inquiry, but his blogs have gone into the smaller details that don’t fit into the articles, as well as the writer’s own opinion of the entire fiasco. (He’s just been pulled off the story, though.)
Charlene Aug 10th 2008 at 06:20 am 19
Also: “The sad part is that the major media avoided the story like the plague because it was a fellow liberal Democrat, like themselves.”
They avoided the story because there was no proof and John Edwards is the most successful trial lawyer in American history. A legitimate newspaper would have been insane to print it. The Enquirer only did because it is on the verge of folding: if they were wrong, Edwards wouldn’t have the chance to sue, but if they were right they might be able to increase circulation to the point that they can keep going.
And to my mind, most media outlets are ultra-conservative in one very sensible way: they only print what won’t get them sued into oblivion.
I do find it interesting that when Democrats cheat they’re amoral atheist scum, but when conservatives cheat it’s because they’ve been sadly led astray. People of every political stripe cheat.
Singapore Bill Aug 11th 2008 at 02:15 am 20
It’s news because unlike Republican politicians he was actually having sex with a woman. And he wasn’t paying her.
ShadZ Aug 20th 2008 at 08:51 pm 21
It is news because, even though Edwards is no longer a U.S. senator nor a presidential candidate, he is still a public figure. Last I heard, he was planning on becoming an anti-poverty crusader (much the same way Al Gore has become an anti-global-warming crusader). John Edwards has NOT dropped out of the public life (well, maybe now he has…)