It turns out that the major national media players have been sitting on the Edwards affair story for, oh, almost a year. Yeah, not a few days to give the former senator and his family time to regroup and formulate a strategy. No, 9 FREAKING MONTHS. That must be a helluva strategy there, Johnny.
See, the MSM didn't think it was a major story - even though Edwards had been heavily touted to be a VP contender, Attorney General possibility, or Supreme Court candidate - and they didn't want to hurt Elizabeth's feelings - like she hadn't been hurt by the affair while she waits to die from stage 4 cancer - and they doubted the veracity of the source - which is fair, considering Edwards paramour was the inspiration for an unhinged coke head in a novel written by an ex-boyfriend. Still, two things bother me. One, if NE could find the dirt, surely our best journalists could have unearthed a few spadefuls. Second, even after finding the truth, our most trusted news sources sat on the story. For months.
Tragic.
And I don't mean the affair.
Here's the important question: are the MSM going to make amends by investigating The One?
You know the drill, Rezko, Wright, Ayers, his campaign tactics in Chicago, the birth certificate questions, etc. I'm looking forward to some kick-ass articles about all of this, now that the MSM has decided not to protect its Democratic favorites. (By the way, it was pretty clear to anyone with more than two brain cells that HRC was not an MSM fave. Can you imagine the uproar if she'd lied about speaking a foreign language? Yeah, exactly.)
Now, there are some gold stars to be handed out. The Boston Globe did an excellent series on The One's district. The Weekly Standard had an superb piece examining His Loftiness' writings for his local paper. There was a so-so article in The New Yorker about Chicago's influence on The Community Obamanizer by a reporter who has since been banned from The CO's sight. And the blogosphere has been on these stories from day one.
I understand being cautious. I understand checking sources. I even understand protecting friends or respected members of the community, especially if a story is highly personal and innocent bystanders, like spouses and children, will be hurt. But, I don't understand protecting candidates when the nation's interests are at stake.
I think it's time we stopped calling the New York Times our paper of record when it seems to have a pattern of keeping important stories off the record. And The Washington Post sure has fallen since it's heyday during the Watergate scandal. But the worst offenders are our major networks. Surely between updates on Britney's custody drama and the latest on the Brangelina twins' photo saga they could have squeezed in this little tidbit.
Because the nation cares.
Because Americans want to know who our politicians are as people and what their true values are. And, nothing exposes your true values like trotting out your family at campaign stops while you're betraying your dying wife.
But here's what has really stuck in my craw. Many of these same "journalists" who sat on the Edwards story were Bill Clinton's loudest critics. They tried their damnedest to bury the Clintons over Bill's one-night indiscretion (as opposed to an affair and yes there is a difference!). Yet, they held tight to their keyboards when the Edwards story was burning up cyberspace - likewise with many Obama stories.
So, let's see if we have this straight.
- Bill Clinton - fair game
- Hillary Clinton - fair game
- John Edwards - golden boy
- Barack Obama - The One They Desperately Want to Elect
No comments:
Post a Comment