Sunday, August 10, 2008

Does the Raleigh N&O’s public editor serve readers?(Post 1)

N&O public editor Ted Vaden tells readers he’s their “advocate“ and “watchdog at the paper.”

With that in mind, consider the following:

On Dec. 16, 2007 Vaden defended
the N&O's frequent stories puffing John Edwards:

The paper gives disproportionate attention to John Edwards because he is a hometown candidate who still has a decent shot at being president of These United States.
Just two months before Vaden defended the N&O’s “disproportionate attention” to its hometown candidate [with] a decent shot at being president of These United States,” Edwards was forced to publicly deny reports of his affair with Rielle Hunter.

And right at the time Vaden’s Dec. 16 column was published, a pregnant Hunter denied Edwards was the father. A close Edwards aide and friend, Andrew Young, announced he was.

You can read more about Edwards' affair in this National Enquirer story.

But neither Edwards’ October denial or Hunter’s December denial and Young’s “I’m the father” claim made it into the N&O.

It seems there are certain limits to the “disproportionate attention” the N&O gives its “hometown” presidential candidate.

In fact, the N&O editors blacked-out any mention of Edwards' affair until July 31, when the liberal/leftist paper finally published a story with few details (it didn’t even mention Hunter by name) and buried the story in the “B” section.

On Aug. 3, 2008 Vaden devoted his column to defending the N&O’s almost year-long news blackout.

He ended his column with this:
Yes, Edwards has been mentioned as a vice presidential candidate, although this controversy makes that less likely. But he is now, after all, a private figure, and there's a point where examining his sex life doesn't serve a public interest and risks turning a respectable newspaper into "The News and Enquirer."
Is it any wonder political insiders refer to the N&O
as Edwards' "back pocket newspaper?"

The N&O's news blackout of the Edwards affair was certainly a great service to Edwards, an N&O reader.

But I can't see how it served the rest of us N&O readers.

Can you?

I just reported and commented.

Now you decide: Does public editor Ted Vaden serve readers?


Anonymous said...

He's a 'private figure'? WHAT? The N&O is simply a dishonest, leftist waste of print.

Anonymous said...

Vaden's naivette is showing. Anyone with a lick of common sense knows if a man will lie about or to his wife, he'll lie about or to anyone or anything. A public trust means the public must be assured that a public servant will always tell the truth. Clinton lied under oath and destroyed whatever credibility he had. Edwards may not have lied under oath, but his honesty is apparently a very flexible thing. Vaden must set extremely low standards if he thinks a slug like Edwards is eligible for a position of trust and responsibility. Moreover, Vaden must hold his readers in extremely low esteem if he thinks he has them bamboozled with his leftwing news filtering.
Tarheel Hawkeye

Anonymous said...

It is not only Vaden's naivette that is on display but also that of much of the msm who claim that they could not publish anything about the Edwards-Hunter trysts because Edwards wouldn't confirm that a relationship existed. People lie often and continuously about not only inconsequential things but big things as well - ask any parent with children as one of the first things a parnt must be able to do is develop that inner sense about one's own children's penchant for dissembling.
John Edwards ws only going to admit the truth when confronted with an alternative to his situation that would be much worse. The big question now is - what was that alternative? Was he about to be blackmailed for monies? Was there a threat that if he spoke at the Democratic convention that there would be a press conference (Hunter? Young, Young's wife?) in which the sordid details of the relationship would be revealed?
There is so much here that just does not add up. What is the deal with Young, his wife, the supposed love child of Young and Hunter, and Young's children all living cosily together in some emnclave and sharing meals? Have they taken up some offshoot branch of Mormonism? Why is some friend/supporter of Edwards picking up the expensive tab for the menage a trois? It is not as if they are staying at a Motel Six? What are the tax and legal obligations in this financial arrangement since one can only give a one time $20,000.00 gift tax free to an individual and Huner is supposedly getting some $15,000.00 per month? FInally, just an observation, did anyone other than me find it just a bit off-putting Edwards remark that he told Elizabeth that she did not have to appear with him when he did his mea culpa on Nightline?

Anonymous said...

I have e-mailed Ted Vaden over issues other than edwards. He is not an advocate of truth for the N&O readers. Actually he just e-mails one back an answer that agrees with the person and then things never change in the least. He is a highly paid fake to make sure the N&O remains the disappointment it has been.

Anonymous said...

Who were less "public" figures than the laxers and their families?

How much was reported about them?

How many stories about them were based on unverified assertions from Cousin Jackie, the Mangum family, leaks from the DPD, etc.?

How much was this was eagerly rushed into print?

But Edwards is not a 'public figure', rumors about him have to be 'verified', and when anything does appear, it will be on the back pages, and with only sparse details.

Modern journalism at its finest...

Anonymous said...

Ted Vaden works for the N&O and Ted Vaden.

I don't know why more people don't see that.

How many times does John have to catch Vaden telling _ _ _ _ before they wise up?