What Edwards Affair Tells Us

Jennifer Rutten over at Contentions nails the meaning about press coverage and the Edward’s scandal perfectly.

We also have the obligatory column from Clark Hoyt admitting that the New York Times was wrong, but denying that their reticence to cover the Edward story was the result of liberal bias. Yes, who could imagine such a thing of the paper which ran a front-page, uncorroborated story of the Republican nominee’s alleged relationship with a lobbyist some nine years ago?

The Edwards mess is the most recent and visible, but hardly unique, example of the mainstream media’s hear no evil/see no evil approach to newsgathering. How many other stories has the MSM missed, denied or avoided? From Rathergate to Reverend Wright to the success of the surge, the pattern is the same: MSM stalls, shuffles its collective feet, and doggedly ignores information for as long as possible until they can no longer do so with a straight face. The fact that these stories without exception work to the detriment of Democrats is apparently a grand coincidence.

3 Responses to “What Edwards Affair Tells Us”

  1. Michael Says:

    It goes both ways:

    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/09/fox-news-edwards/
    (watch the clip)

    The way this guy hammers the Edwards story is so blatant that it plays like a Daily Show skit satirizing media bias.

    Unbiased journalism is dead. All hail the new king, Sensationalism.

  2. steve Says:

    So from what I can tell the pundit didn’t get the memo about that segment being about the John Edward’s scandal.

  3. Jamie Says:

    This is even more funny:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/11/navarrette.edwards/index.html?iref=topnews

    Wow that Navarrette sure knows how to build an uncompelling argument.

    I didn’t write about the Edwards affair because there are so many more important things in the news…. Give me a freakin’ break…

Leave a Reply