Bob_Grip's Blog

Why did it take so long for the MSM (mainstream media) to pick up on the John Edwards' scandal? Phil Bronstein of the San Francisco Chronicle may have said it best. "Most MSM in general had stayed away, picking at it with their noses held, as if looking for something valuable in a moldy dumpster," said Bronstein.

I think it comes down to elitism.  You can be sure if one of the networks or the wire services ran with the story first, everyone would have converged on the story.  But since the story broke in the National Enquirer, no one in the MSM wanted to be seen following up the Enquirer's lead.

Clark Hoyt, the Public Editor for the New York Times wrote this weekend, "I do not think liberal bias had anything to do with it. But I think The Times  — like The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, major networks and wire services  — was far too squeamish about tackling the story."  He continued, "But The Times did not try to verify it, beyond a few perfunctory efforts, which I think was wrong....I think it was a mistake for Times editors to turn up their noses and not pursue it." Hoyt quoted the Times' executive editor.  “There was a tendency, fair or not, to dismiss what you read in the National Enquirer,” Keller said. “I know they are sometimes right.” 

The Times, with all its reporters and resources, could have tried to independently verify the story.  It just didn't want to.

John Edwards was clearly more than just your run-of-the-mill adulterer. If you remember, he made his family a cornerstone of his presidential campaign. During his interview with ABC News (an interview he requested, perhaps because he knew it would air while most of the world was watching the opening ceremonies of the Olympics) he said of his affair, "It happened during a period after she [his wife, Elizabeth] was in remission from cancer, that's no excuse in any possible way for what happened." How he could possibly think that makes it any more acceptable is beyond me.   

Was Edwards telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth during the interview?  He wasn't under oath, so there is no way of knowing.  But I do believe he was telling the truth when he tried to explain why he chose to betray his wife and family.  He had to do with the allure of political power.

Edwards said, "... I went from being a senator, a young senator to being considered for vice president, running for president, being a vice presidential candidate and becoming a national public figure. All of which fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want. You're invincible. And there will be no consequences. And nothing, nothing could be further from the truth."