We’ll hear plenty of this from MSM

Byron York at NRO:

In the coming days, look for representatives of big media organizations to describe how aggressively they were reporting on the Edwards story — and how they were this close to having something to publish or broadcast when Edwards short-circuited the story by confessing to the Hunter affair.

Who doubts it?

Hat tip: Instapundit

Edwards or MSM: A “Which is Worse?” Reader Poll

At Instapundit you get to cast your vote for either:

A politician who has an affair while his wife has cancer, and lies about it.

Or

A reporter or editor who covers for the politician who has an affair while his wife has cancer.

You can check the vote totals, too.

As of 10:30 AM ET the reporters and editors were racking up about 80% of the vote.

That seems about right.

The Churchill Series - Aug. 8, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

I won't be wrapping the Abdication Crisis posts today because I need to spend most of my blogging time on the Edwards-Hunter affair story. I'll finish with the Abdication Crisis Monday. I'm sorry for the delay but trust you'll understand.

For today I'm reposting this oldie from Feb. 2007.

Most Americans who know of Chequers think of it as a kind of Camp David for British Prime Ministers. And that’s on the mark as to its purpose, but it has a much richer history and architecture than Camp David. Chequers is a large Elizabethan house with marbled and richly paneled rooms.

As you would guess, Churchill loved the place. After its last private owners gave it to the nation as a country place of rest and enjoyment for Prime Ministers, Churchill was one of the first quests.

The first Prime Minister to use it as an official residence was Lloyd George starting in January, 1921. A few weeks thereafter, he invited Churchill to stay as his weekend guest. Clementine did not accompany Churchill so we find him on Feb. 6, 1921 writing Clementine:

My darling,

Here I am. You would like to see this place – Perhaps you will some day!

It is just the kind of house you admire – a paneled museum, full of history, full of treasures – but insufficiently warmed – Anyhow a wonderful possession. […]

”Perhaps you will some day!” Churchill saw to it that she did.

BTW – “insufficiently warmed” was an understatement. The house had no central heating when Churchill was PM, and I’m mot certain it does now.

During WWII when Eisenhower would be getting ready to visit Chequers, he would sometimes tell aides he was going to “that damned icebox.”

I hope you all have a good weekend.

John
__________________________________________________________
Churchill’s letter to Clementine is found on pg. 225 of Speaking for Themselves: The Personal Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill, edited by their daughter, Mary Soames. She also provided background on Chequers.

Will Edwards now challenge Kerry?

A JinC commenter, tongue-in-cheek, thinks he might.

The commenter says:

I suppose that John Edwards will take a paternity test as soon as John Kerry has released ALL of his Navy records, as he so many times promised....

Two peas out the same pod.

Well, sure.

All of us except most MSM news orgs and Dems would like to see Kerry release his Navy records. Finally!

But I'm betting the commenter and most of you know that if the stakes depend on Kerry publicly releasing ALL his Navy records, Edwards can take a very slow walk to the DNA lab and still beat Kerry.

Has John Edwards finally told the truth?

I’m very skeptical about that.

A JinC commenter responding to Edwards admits to sexual affair; denies paternity just said:

We are now asked to believe that the meeting between Rielle Hunter nd Edwards at a clandestine location in the middle of the night occured even though the affair had long since ended and the child was someone else's? He knew nothing of monthly payments?

And reasonable people are expected to believe this?

I’m right with the commenter.

Then there’s this from a Politico.com story concerning what ABC News is reporting Edwards is now saying:

He denied being the father of Hunter’s child and also that the affair was over before his wife’s cancer recurred in March of last year.

In his statement, Edwards said that, "I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established."

"I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby," Edwards said. A former Edwards staffer has claimed to be the father of the child.

Left unanswered in the ABC release is whether Edwards is asked to explain why he was apparently in a Los Angeles hotel room with his former mistress last month.

A source familiar with the ABC interview said that Edwards does the broadcast alone and explains why his wife is not beside him. Edwards says that while politicians often have their wives beside them in similar situations, he has embarrassed her enough.

Edwards had heatedly denied the affair after the Enquirer floated the possibility last Oct. 11." ...

OK, you got that?

He’s not the daddy. He's not involved in regular payments to Rielle Hunter. The affair is over.

Those denials go against what the National Enquirer’s been reporting.

So what are we to make of what follows in Politico’s story:

ABC News chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross said the Enquirer’s reporting was “95 to 96 percent” accurate[?]

Would Ross score the Enquirer "95 to 96" if he thought it was wrong about Edwards being the daddy?

And there are those press reports that Enquirer editor David Perel says his paper will be able to prove the parts of its reports Edwards is still denying.

The Politico story's here; the ABC News report's here.

Edwards admits to sexual affair; denies paternity

ABC News is reporting - - -

John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extramarital affair with a novice filmmaker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.
A former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has said he was the father of the child.

According to friends of Hunter, Edwards met her at a New York city bar in 2006. His political action committee later paid her $114,000 to produce campaign website documentaries despite her lack of experience.

Edwards said the affair began during the campaign after she was hired. Hunter traveled with Edwards around the country and to Africa.

Edwards said his wife, Elizabeth, and others in his family became aware of the affair in 2006.

Edwards made a point of telling Woodruff that his wife's cancer was in remission when he began the affair with Hunter. Elizabeth Edwards has since been diagnosed with an incurable form of the disease.

When the National Enquirer first reported the alleged Edwards-Hunter affair last October 11, Edwards, his campaign staff and Hunter vociferously denounced the report.
"The story is false, it's completely untrue, it's ridiculous," Edwards told reporters then.

He repeated his denials just two weeks ago.

Edwards today admitted the National Enquirer was correct when it reported he had visited Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month. ….

The rest of the story’s here.

Comments:

Edwards will be a guest tonight on “Nightline” at 11:35 ET. The network says it will broadcast the Edwards interview in its entirety.

What’s happened is a searing ordeal for the Edwards family. I’m sorry for its innocent members.

The affair and Edwards’ lies create problems for the Dems, not least the questions it raises about Sen. Obama’s vaunted judgment.

The Obama camp has done nothing to distance itself from frequent reports Edwards was on Obama’s short V-P candidate list; or at least a sure shot for an important post in President presumptive Obama’s administration.

Did Edwards fool Obama or did Obama know about Edwards’ affair?

And if he knew about it, did Obama hope as Edwards has for many months that the Dem-dominated MSM would cover it up?

Edwards has also made it much harder for the Dems to campaign this fall attacking the GOP for sleaze.

The Edwards family’s ordeal and the Dems problems caused by Edwards’ odious behavior are important.

But IMO the most important and troubling aspect of the affair is what its revealed about the bias of so many of our news organizations that led them to do all they could to avoid reporting the story or grossly downplaying it and trivializing its importance.

If you don’t think political bias was at play in MSM’s treatment of liberal/leftist Edwards, just recall what happened when Anita Hill, with no supporting evidence or witness – simply her accusation – charged Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment.

Or recall what happened when a woman in Durham told a series of wildly improbable stories about being beaten, strangled, and raped orally, vaginally and anally over the course of 30 minutes by three while members of the Duke lacrosse team in a tiny bathroom people who’ve seen it say they have trouble understanding how four people could ever squeeze into it in the first place, and if they somehow did, how they'd have room enough to lift their arms.

And speaking of the Duke hoax and the frame-up attempt it spawned, none of you have ever seen a picture of that tiny bathroom, have you?

You haven’t seen a photo of three reporters squeezed into the bathroom, with the photo taken by a press photographer who was also in there with them, have you?

Yet as the Edwards-Hunter affair story played out these two-plus weeks, MSM orgs keep saying, “Gee, we don’t have pictures. We wouldn’t touch the Edwards story until we do.”

Polls typically show only about 20 or 25 percent of Americans say they have "some" or "a great deal" of trust in MSM news orgs.

It's no wonder.

Hat tip: Ed in NY

McClatchy’s N&O’s unbelievable “credible” sources

This past Sunday, Ted Vaden, the Raleigh News & Observer’s public editor pitched readers the N&O’s explanation for why it had never published anything about the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair until just days before; and then only a few details buried in the "B" section.

Vaden didn’t remind readers the former Senator, Presidential-nominee candidate and self-described “poverty fighter” has been an N&O favorite since he entered public life.

Vaden said nothing about the N&O’s 1998 endorsement of Edwards during his only Senate race; or the N&O's 2004 endorsement when Edwards ran for Vice-president with Sen. John Kerry.

And Vaden never explained why the Dems at McClatchy’s N&O reported nothing last year about Edwards’ affair with Hunter and her pregnancy, even when Edwards and Hunter both publicly denied the affair and another man in the N&O’s circulation area, Andrew Young (not the former UN Amb.) stepped forward to say he was the daddy.

Wouldn't you think the N&O, which John Edwards calls "my hometown newspaper," would view Edwards as a "credible source of news?"

But this past Sunday public editor Vaden told N&O readers:

The N&O approached the story cautiously. On Wednesday, John Drescher, executive editor, told me that N&O reporters were investigating the allegations but that the paper would not publish a story about the tabloid report. "I don't view the National Enquirer as a credible source of news," he said.

There you go.

That’s what readers and advertisers pay the N&O to do, right?

"Filtering the news" is what former N&O executive editor for news Melanie Sill called it.

By the way, does anyone know why the N&O thought Crystal Mangum was such a "credible source of news?"

Vaden's entire column's here.

MSM's failure to follow-up on the Enquirer's Edwards-Hunter stories

National Review's Byron York writes about it. I comment below the star line.

York begins - - -

I spent part of Thursday corresponding with people at major news organizations that have not reported the John Edwards “love child” story. Why haven’t they mentioned the scandal? Are they doing their own investigating of the National Enquirer’s allegations? Are they under management directives not to report it?

Most of the conversations — all of the revealing ones — were off the record; like anyone else, people in the press aren’t particularly eager to speak publicly about topics that make them uncomfortable.

But from the exchanges, it’s possible to piece together some of the rationales journalists are using to continue not to report the Edwards story — and to see how the whole strange episode will end. So without quoting anyone or betraying any confidences, here is what appears to be going on:

First, the journalists don’t believe that news organizations should just uncritically pass on the reporting of the Enquirer. They have a point; the Enquirer has been quite accurate on some stories and inaccurate on others. One could argue that the tabloid’s reporting on this particular story contains a wealth of detail that remains un-denied by Edwards or anyone else. Still, there’s nothing wrong with news organizations being skeptical of the source.

But the question is not whether the news organizations should simply repeat the Enquirer’s reporting. It’s whether they are actively pursuing the story, doing their own reporting in an effort to confirm the basic allegations that Edwards had an affair with campaign staffer Rielle Hunter, and then had a baby with her, and is now covering it up. And here it appears — from this completely unscientific survey — that there is not a lot of independent reporting going on.

Instead, some big-time journalists seem to believe the Enquirer has nailed the story, and they are waiting for the tabloid to release the full results of its reporting. In the meantime, they are staying away from the story because it appeared in the Enquirer.
In other words, they’re waiting for the Enquirer to fully report a story that they wouldn’t otherwise report… because it’s in the Enquirer.

That could have changed by this point.

If news organizations had thrown a lot of resources at the story in an attempt to confirm (or disprove) the Enquirer’s allegations, it’s likely some of them would have come up with something in the two and a half weeks since the Enquirer reported the story on July 22. Instead, there has been nothing. ...

York's entire article's here

*******************************************************************

Comments:

One excuse most MSM have used for their failure to investigate and report on the story has to do with "there were no witnesses."

That's not true as far as the Enguirer's July 22 report is concerned. Five witnesses are named: two Enguirer reporters, Bill McGovern who the NE says drove Hunter to the hotel, Rielle Hunter and John Edwards.

Remember Anita Hill's sexual harassment charge against Clarence Thomas?

Hill and her media flacks who rushed her unsubstantiated charge onto the front pages of America's newspapers and demanded the Senate Judiciary Committee investigate it (which the committee did , with the hearings televised), have never produced a single witness to what Hill charged, unless you count Hill and Thomas as witnesses.

The MSM's treatment of the Edwards-Hunter story has demonstrated once again the old MSM double standard.

Hat tip: Jack in Silver Springs

Charlotte Observer & the Edwards-Hunter story

At alternet.org the Columbia Journalism Review's Clint Hendler has a very good, link-rich account of the Charlotte Observer's efforts to report on the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair story.

Handler begins - - -


For the Charlotte Observer, it began in October, when the National Enquirer published an article suggesting that presidential candidate--and former North Carolina senator--John Edwards was having an affair.

The Enquirer's story purported to quote crush emails the woman-in-question, Rielle Hunter, had sent to friends. But otherwise the piece was thin. And the tabloid, while enjoying a quiet reputation for being libel-proof, doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the hearts of editors and readers.

Still, the McClatchy-owned Observer, the largest paper in Edwards's home state, sent Lisa Zagaroli, its Washington reporter, up to New York to make contacts and check around.

"I looked at it as a news tip," says Rick Thames, the Observer's editor. "I wasn't put off by it being in the National Enquirer. I was worried it if it was true."

Thames felt Zagaroli was making progress. But then Andrew Young, an Edwards campaign aide, stepped forward to claim that he, not his boss, had impregnated Hunter. In Thames eyes, "the story cooled."

But on July 22nd, the National Enquirer published a luridly written tale asserting that Edwards had joined Hunter and her now some-months-old baby behind closed doors in the Beverly Hills Hilton. After said meeting, the Enquirer reporters wrote that Edwards led them on a Keystone Kops style chase through the stairways, basements, and bathrooms of the hotel.

That ratcheted things up in North Carolina. On July 24, Jim Morrill, a veteran political reporter at the paper, posted an item on his blog linking the Enquirer's account. Morrill called the Hilton to confirm, as best he could, the substance of the story. But they weren't talking. Neither were his Edwards contacts. ...

The rest of the story's here.

I think Hendler's account underplays some of the work the Observer has done on the story, especially lately.

Observer reporter Mark Johnson's story I linked to here gets my vote for the best MSM reporting on the story to date.

Until Johnson's story yesterday, those few MSM news outlets that mentioned the story relied almost entirely on rewrites of the July 22 National Enquirer story. There's nothing wrong with that if you acknowledge the other paper, which the accounts I read did. But they didn't advance the story.

Johnson, by getting leading Democratic party strategists to talk on the record, advanced the story.

The Churchill Series - Aug. 8, 2008

(One of a weekday series of posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Like the three preceding posts, this one concerns the abdication crisis of 1936 caused by King Edward VIII's determination to marry the twice divorced American socialite Wallis Simpson.

Below you'll find a section of the Wikipedia entry for the crisis. In general outline it appears accurate. It also gives you an idea of how complex and unpopular was Churchill's role in the crisis.

The Wikipedia section begins with a description of the three options that would have resolved the crisis. Option 1 was favored by the King but was never a likely outcome given the Government's and the Parliament's the fierce opposition to a royal marriage.

The options were that:

1. Edward and Mrs. Simpson marry and she become queen (a "royal marriage")

2. they marry and she not become queen but receive some courtesy title instead (a "morganatic marriage")

3. abdication for Edward and any potential heirs he might father, thus allowing him to make any marital decisions without further constitutional implications.

The second option had European precedents, including Edward's own great-grandfather, Duke Alexander of Württemberg, but no parallel in British constitutional history. The Commonwealth's prime ministers were consulted, and the majority agreed that there was "no alternative to course (3)".^[44] Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, Australian Prime Minister Joseph Lyons and South African Premier J. B. M. Hertzog opposed options 1 and 2. New Zealand Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage rejected option 1 but thought that option 2 "might be possible ... if some solution along these lines were found to be practicable" but "would be guided by the decision of the Home government".^[45]

Irish Prime Minister Éamon de Valera claimed to be disinterested while also remarking that, as a Catholic country, Ireland did not recognize divorce. He supposed that if the British people would not accept Mrs. Simpson then abdication was the only possible solution.^[46]

On 24 November, Baldwin consulted the three leading opposition politicians in Britain: Leader of the Opposition Clement Attlee, Liberal leader Archibald Sinclair, and Winston Churchill. Sinclair and Attlee agreed that options 1 and 2 were unacceptable and Churchill pledged to support the Government.^[47]

In fact, Churchill did not support the Government. In July, Churchill had advised the King's legal counsel, Walter Turner Monckton, against the divorce but his advice was ignored.^[48] As soon as the affair became public knowledge, Churchill started to pressure Baldwin and the King to delay any decisions until Parliament and the people had been consulted.^[49]

In a private letter to Geoffrey Dawson, the editor of The Times newspaper, Churchill suggested that a delay would be beneficial because given time the King might fall out of love with Mrs. Simpson.^[50]

Political support for the King was scattered, comprising politicians outside of the mainstream parties such as Churchill, Oswald Mosley and the Communists.^[51] David Lloyd George also supported the King, though he disliked Mrs. Simpson. He was, however, unable to take any active role in the crisis because he was vacationing in Jamaica with his mistress.^[52]

In early December, rumours circulated that the King's supporters would join together in a "King's Party" led by Churchill, but they were untrue. There was no concerted effort to form an organised movement, and Churchill had no intention of leading one.^[53] Nevertheless, the rumours damaged the King and Churchill severely, as Members of Parliament were horrified at the idea of the King interfering in politics.^[54]

The letters and diaries of working-class people and ex-servicemen generally demonstrate support for the King, while those from the middle and upper classes tend to express indignation and distaste.^[55] The Times, The Morning Post, The Daily Herald and newspapers owned by Lord Kemsley, such as The Daily Telegraph, opposed the marriage. On the other hand, the Express and Mail newspapers, owned by Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere respectively, appeared to support a morganatic marriage.^[56] The King estimated that the newspapers in favour had a circulation of 12.5 million, while those against had 8.5 million.^[57]

Backed by Churchill and Beaverbrook, Edward now proposed to broadcast a speech indicating his desire to remain on the throne or to be recalled to it if forced to abdicate, while marrying Mrs. Simpson morganatically. In one section, Edward proposed to say:

Neither Mrs. Simpson nor I have ever sought to insist that she should be queen. All we desired was that our married happiness should carry with it a proper title and dignity for her, befitting my wife. Now that I have at last been able to take you into my confidence, I feel it is best to go away for a while, so that you may reflect calmly and quietly, but without undue delay, on what I have said.^[58]

Baldwin and the Cabinet blocked the speech, saying it would shock many people as well as entail a grave breach of constitutional principles.^[59] By convention, the Sovereign could and can only act with the advice and counsel of Ministers drawn from, or approved by, Parliament. In seeking the people's support against the Government, Edward was opting to oppose the binding advice of his ministers in all the Commonwealth states, and instead act as a private individual. The Cabinet felt that in proposing the speech Edward had revealed his disdainful attitude towards the constitutions of his realms, and threatened the political neutrality of the Crown.^[60]

On 5 December, having in effect been told that he could not keep the throne and marry Mrs. Simpson, and having had his request to broadcast to the Empire to explain "his side of the story" blocked on constitutional grounds,^[61] Edward chose the third option,^[62] becoming the first monarch in modern British and Dominion history to abdicate voluntarily.

Obama-supporting Prof needs scandal lessons

Excerpts from a Fox News story, "Edwards’ Party Role Clouded by Allegations," followed by my comments below the star line.

According to Fox - - -

…Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill, an author and Obama supporter, said convention planners can hardly deny Edwards a speaking role, but unless he unequivocally discredits the charges, his role will be diminished.

“It would be sort of party suicide to take someone with that kind of scandal and place them up,” Hill said.

“At a moment where the Democratic advantage partially hinges on not only the public dissatisfaction with the Bush administration but also the wide range of scandals … over the last three years of the GOP … it would be unwise for the DNC to prominently position someone who has ethical issues swirling around,” he added.

The entire Fox story’s here.

*****************************************************************

Comments:

When Prof. Hill speaks of “public dissatisfaction” and “ the wide range of scandals … over the last three years of the GOP,” does he ever think of former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer, forced to resign earlier this year when his involvement in a prostitution ring became public knowledge?

And new information has just surfaced about the scandalous manner in which Spitzer, once considered a possible Democratic presidential nominee, conducted himself in office? (Spitzer, btw, was endorsed by the NY Times. - - JinC)

Did Prof. Hill read a few months ago a NY Post story which began:

A former driver and aide to former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey yesterday made the bombshell claim that Dina Matos McGreevey must have always known her husband was gay - because he was the other man in bed with them.

In an explosive interview with The Post, the McGreeveys' self-professed man in the middle, Teddy Pedersen, gave explicit details of three-way sex romps that he claimed to have had with the now-divorcing duo, starting during their courtship and continuing into the marriage. …

I know Democrat McGreevey had to resign when the public learned he’d given a government job to his gay lover. The job was supposed to go to someone expert in counter- terrorism work.

I honestly don’t know if Teddy Pedersen was McGreevey’s appointee lover or whether he’s another “actor” in the scandal. (McGreevey, btw, was endorsed by the NY Times. - - JinC)

I know some of you are saying, “Please mention Democratic Congressman William (“Cash in the freezer") Jefferson who’s up for re-election this year.”

OK, I just did.

And what's the latest on Detroit’s Democratic Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick?

His Honor will be spending tonight in jail because he violated the terms of his bail bond.

Then there's this from the July 11 NY Times:

While aggressive evictions are reducing the number of rent-stabilized apartments in New York, Representative Charles B. Rangel is enjoying four of them, including three adjacent units on the 16th floor overlooking Upper Manhattan in a building owned by one of New York’s premier real estate developers.

Mr. Rangel, the powerful Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, uses his fourth apartment, six floors below, as a campaign office, despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence. …

I can think of many more Dems involved in the past three years in sleaze and corruption – Sens. Dodd and Conrad, former top Obama aide Jim Johnson and his close friend Tony (“Not the Tony Rezko I know”) Rezko, recently found guilty on 16 criminal counts.

Conclusion: Prof. Hill needs a lesson in the corruption, sleaze and criminality of many of Sen. Obama’s fellow Democrats.

McCain aims at Independents

using Dems to help him.



What do you think?

Hat tip: AC

Obama on the hustings & the "David Brooks question"

The following is from Mike Williams letter today. Check especially the "Snake oil salesman?" link to the American Thinker and share your thoughts on what you find there.

Thanks, Mike.

John
_____________________________________________________

So here’s Obama, on the hustings, answering a question from a seven year-old on why he wants to be president:

“America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.”

Ed Morrissey:

Once again, Obama got off the teleprompter and put his foot directly in his mouth. He’s not selling Hope, he’s selling Despair, and himself as the snake oil that will cure us of all our ills.

Snake oil salesman?

Many people, including no doubt a goodly number of nervous Democrat super delegates, are asking themselves the David Brooks' question about Obama's standing in the polls: "Where's the landslide ?" After evaluating him for several months, voters in the middle still aren't ready to embrace him.

National polls show not only a tightening of the Obama-McCain race to a statistical dead heat but momentum toward a McCain lead, something inconceivable only weeks ago. The specter of an Obama collapse has to haunt more than a few super delegates.

Buyer's remorse seemed evident and growing among many Democrats toward the end of their primary season when Obama lost again and again to Clinton, even as the delegate math was by then stacked in his favor. That remorse was put on hold (but apparently not resolved) by Obama's seeming to secure the nomination and the subsequent popular boost he enjoyed at first. But lately the candidate with a difference has had a hard time living up to his promise to be a new kind of politician….

MSM now lifting its lid on Edwards-Hunter story

Heads-up to all those who’ve been saying only right-wing bloggers, Fox and talk radio would touch “that tabloid sleaze about Sen. Edwards fathering a ‘love child.’”

The Times, they are a changing.

Not the NY or LA Times. They’re continuing their news blackouts of the story as are most other self-described “responsible” MSM news outlets.

But the front page of today’s Raleigh News & Observer carries the headlines:

Edwards urged to address baby story
Could face snub at party convention

The story’s under the byline of The Charlotte Observer’s Mark Johnson. Here are excerpts followed by my comments below the star line.

Johnson begins - - -

Former Sen. John Edwards might have to move quickly to save his spot on the national stage.

With two weeks before their national convention, several prominent Democrats are saying Edwards must publicly address anonymously sourced National Enquirer stories that claim he had an affair with a campaign worker and fathered her baby.

Democrats gather in Denver on Aug. 25 and Edwards, as the 2004 vice presidential nominee and a presidential candidate who won delegates this year, ordinarily would be a speaker.

Instead some Democrats say convention organizers will try to avoid the lingering questions if Edwards himself doesn't talk.

"He absolutely does have to [resolve it]. If it's not true, he has to issue a stronger denial," said Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards' 1998 Senate race. "It's a very damaging thing. ... The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it's clearly getting ready to bust out. If it's not true, he's got to stand up and say, 'This is not true. That is not my child and I'm going to take legal action against the people who are spreading these lies.' It's not enough to say, 'That's tabloid trash.' " …

Two weeks ago, after the Enquirer ran the story about the July 21 hotel liaison involving Edwards [and the child’s mother, Rielle Hunter, while a friend of Hunter’s watched their baby in another room in the same hotel, Edwards] dismissed a reporter's question in Houston and used the "tabloid trash" line. Edwards brushed off a Charlotte Observer reporter in Washington last week: "Can't do it now, I'm sorry."

His designated staffer for press contacts has not responded to e-mail requests for an interview.

No one answered a reporter who rang a buzzer at the gate of Edwards' Orange County home on Wednesday. Friends and former staffers refuse to comment now, though they helped Edwards last fall by dismissing the Enquirer story of a sexual relationship between Edwards and a campaign videographer when it initially broke.

"Sorry cannot help you on this one," wrote Jennifer Palmieri, a former top Edwards aide, in an e-mail.

The Enquirer published a story in October, citing unnamed sources, claiming that Edwards was having an affair with a woman who had filmed a series of videos during his presidential campaign. The tabloid later reported she was pregnant. Two weeks ago, the tabloid posted a story online chronicling how Edwards had visited the woman, Rielle Hunter, and their child July 21 at a Beverly Hills hotel and that the paper's reporters confronted him afterward.

Hunter posted an online statement at the time denying the October story. In December, a campaign worker for Edwards, Andrew Young, claimed paternity of the woman's then-unborn child.

Last week, though, the Charlotte Observer obtained a copy of the child's birth certificate, which did not list the father. Hunter's lawyer said only that "a lot of women do that" and that it was a personal matter between Hunter and Young.

"If there is not an explanation that's satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is 'no,' he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention," said Don Fowler of Columbia, S.C., a former Democratic National Committee chair.

Edwards' political currency, which is his value as a public speaker and advocate, declines each day the story goes unresolved, Fowler and other Democratic strategists said.

The entire Johnson/Observer story's here.

**************************************************

Comments:

Johnson and the Charlotte Observer did a lot of digging and produced an important story.

Most of it will be news to N&O readers. The paper didn’t report anything on the affair until last week and then not much in two stories it buried in the “B” section.

This past Sunday the N&O’s public editor offered readers a series of excuses for the N&O’s lack of coverage. For example, that the July 22 National Enquirer story about the Edwards-Hunter tryst at the Beverly Hilton Hotel named no witnesses.

In fact, the NE’s story named three witnesses: Edwards, Hunter and Bob McGovern, who the NE said was a friend of Hunter's who drove her from Santa Barbara to LA’s Beverly Hilton and watched the baby while Edwards and Hunter had their tryst in another room.

But I want to leave the N&O's shameful failure to report this story last year and until last week for other posts.

Back to Johnson and the Charlotte Observer’s story:

Wasn't it great to read in the story the kind of reporting you get when reporters pursue a story and dig?

It's important to learn no one “answered a reporter who rang a buzzer at the gate of Edwards' Orange County home” and that “[f]riends and former staffers refuse to comment now, though they helped Edwards last fall by dismissing the Enquirer story of a sexual relationship between Edwards and a campaign videographer when it initially broke."

That’s providing readers with critical information that helps them connect the dots.

Knowing that friends and former staffers who helped Edwards deny the story last fall are now refusing to comment enables readers to ask: What’s changed between last fall and now?

Well, for one thing a baby’s been born. And there’s DNA testing that can easily establish whether Edwards is the father.

A big hat tip to Johnson and the Charlotte Observer for their work.

As for the N&O’s running the story, I think they had no choice.

The Observer is North Carolina’s largest circulation daily. With the Observer giving the story such attention, how could the N&O ignore it?

Also, newspapers across the country are running the Johnson/ Observer story. For example, the Dallas Morning News.

Stay tuned.

The Churchill Series - Aug. 6, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

The last two series posts concerned the abdication crisis in 1936 brought on by King Edward VIII’s determination to marry the twice-divorced American socialite Wallis Simpson.

I've said Churchill "took up the King's cause," but I've avoided saying anything more detailed about Churchill’s role in the crisis because IMO his actions and motives were complex. I don't have sufficient understanding of them to post in any detail concerning them.

What I'll do today and tomorrow is offer a few items I think bear on Churchill's actions and leave it at that.

I'll use a comment a reader made as stimulus to my items with the reader's comment in italics and mine in plain.

Winston Churchill was fanatically loyal to his friends, and to a set of ideas he held about British royalty. His wonderful mind was almost medieval in his fealty to these ideals.

He'd known the King since birth. They were close friends who'd played polo and hunted together. Before Edward became King, Churchill, like the King's family and others of his close friends, called him David when they were together.

As a young officer during WW I David, then Prince of Wales, repeatedly and insistently volunteered to serve in the trenches. The Government denied his requests for fear of the consequences should he be captured.

Despite being denied the chance to serve as a combat officer, David served as a staff officer near the front and frequently visited it at great risk to himself.

Courage was the virtue Churchill most admired in men. And, as the commenter said, "Winston Churchill was fanatically loyal to his friends."

What we've just read provides some of the explanation for why Churchill came very close to wrecking his public career by "taking up the King's cause."

More tomorrow about Churchill and the abdication crisis.

The Raleigh N&O’s “early coverage” myth

I want to respond here to parts of two comments on the thread of NY Times did not "lead" on the Duke lacrosse case.

Commenters are in italics; I’m in plain.

The role of the News & Observer in setting the table for Nifong's criminal frame of the lacrosse players has long been underplayed.

Agreed!

It’s also never been satisfactorily explained or fully examined.

The N&O itself fobs readers off with the “at first the players, their families and attorneys didn’t talk to us but once they did our coverage was just fine” myth. Sometimes the N&O adds: “And we were under deadline, too.”

You’ll find an example of the N&O’s myth-telling in the August/September 2007 edition of American Journalism Review. From "Justice Delayed," AJR’s assessment of media coverage of the case:

…[Melanie Sill, the N&O’s executive editor for news at the time the story broke and for more than a year and a half thereafter] cites challenges regarding initially taciturn players and their representatives. "The first three or four days of coverage that was a real hole in the reporting," she says. "In hindsight, we should have been much more emphatic much higher in the stories that we didn't have that other side."…

How can anyone blame the “taciturn players and their representatives” (read parents - - JinC) for the N&O’s decision to tell readers on March 25, 2006 the “scared” “young mother” was new to dancing?

The N&O knew who she was and that it had reported in June 2002 concerning her theft of the car of a man she lapped danced for at a “gentlemen’s club.”

The N&O withheld from its March 25 story the critically important news that the accuser, Crystal Mangum said the second dancer had also been assaulted at the March 13/14 party, but hadn’t reported it for fear of losing her job. Also, that the second dancer would do “anything for money.”

How can the N&O blame the players and their parents for that decision?

And how can the N&O blame them for its decision to withhold that information for 13 months; and only publish it the day following the NC attorney general’s declaration the three players whose indictments and ordeal the N&O had reported in great detail were innocent?

Just early coverage problems?

[The N&O’s] behavior early on cannot be swept under the rug.

I’m confident that during the discovery portion of the civil rights violations suits filed by the players and family members, we’ll learn a great deal about the N&O’s “behavior early on,” as well as it’s subsequent behavior such as I cited above.

When Mike Nifong is deposed, attorneys for the plaintiffs will surely ask him whether, as Ruth Sheehan claims, he was in contact with the N&O by at least March 26 and served as the anonymous source for her March 27 “Team’s silence is sickening” column.

The attorneys will press on that point because it can be an important part of demonstrating how the “Duke rape scandal” framing was presented to the public before Nifong ever spoke publicly.

If you believe AG Roy Cooper's finding that there never was any credible evidence of crimes, how did the N&O manage to publish between Mar. 24 and 27 the same elaborate false crime story Nifong began peddling on Mar. 27?

Coincidence or cooperation?

How did it happen that everyone at the N&O working on the story “forgot” to report on March 25 and for days thereafter the news the N&O had of the captains’ extraordinary cooperation with police?

And wasn’t it “lucky” for Nifong and everyone else involved in trashing the lacrosse team and attempting to frame three of its members that the N&O instead promulgated the “wall of solidarity” lie?

Without that lie, how could Sheehan have written her “Team’s silence is sickening” column?

Without that lie and Sheehan’s column, fair-minded people would’ve asked why Nifong was saying the players weren’t cooperating; and what were those Wanted and Vigilante posters all about?

Here are two important questions I hope Nifong's asked: “When did you first learn Crystal Mangum had said to an N&O reporter that the second dancer, Kim Roberts, had also been sexually assaulted at the party but hadn’t reported it for fear of losing her job? And what did you do when you learned it?”

Nifong could have heard it from the N&O back in March 2006, couldn't he?

[Duke Professor] Timothy Tyson must also be held accountable as he goes about in the next year promoting a film that is based largely on exaggerations.

An organized effort is necessary to let everyone know who this man really is.

I hope there is such an effort.

Tsyon’s conduct during Spring 2006 (spreading the lie about the players not cooperating with police and deliberately inflaming racial tensions) was every bit as reprehensible as the worst members of Duke faculty’s Group of 88.

Tyson’s recent charge, published on an N&O blog, that prosecutors in the Hart case went to trial knowing they had no evidence is prima facie false. That’s been called to his attention at the N&O blog, at Durham-in-Wonderland and here. He’s done nothing to correct the record.

IF I WAS JOHN EDWARDS AND

I was certain Frances Quinn Hunter wasn’t my baby, I'd contact Barry Scheck, Professor of Law and Director, Innocence Project, at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law.

Scheck is arguably America’s leading attorney in the area of forensic applications of DNA technology

I’d ask Scheck to help me make available in the most transparent and reliable way possible a sample of my DNA for use by a DNA testing firm he’d recommend.

I’d ask him for recommendations as to the best way to approach the baby’s mother, Rielle Hunter, to secure her cooperation in obtaining a sample of the baby’s DNA in the most transparent and reliable way possible so Scheck could arrange to have it tested by the same lab he’d recommended test my DNA.

The lab would, of course, match the DNA samples to determine whether I could be the father.

I’d ask Scheck whether once he had the lab’s report eliminating me as the father, he’d hold a news conference to make the announcement and answer reporters’ questions about how the DNA testing had been conducted. I’d be happy for the lab director to be at the news conference to answer questions.

I’d assure Scheck I’d pay all reasonable fees he and the lab charged.

I’d ask that they perform the services as quickly as possible.

What would you do if you had John Edwards’ financial resources, a public reputation to consider, and, what should matter most to you, a wife you’ve repeatedly told the public you love?

Huge Seoul Welcome for Bush

Gateway Pundit has the pictures, videos and a blogger’s post which provides a classic example of Reuters (“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter”) News' headline bias. Story bias, too.

Be sure to visit GP here.

Also, did any of you see and hear mention on the networks' news programs of the welcome America’s President received in Seoul?

Did any of the networks mention the collapse of the “massive protest demonstrations” South Korea’s Left had planned for Bush’s arrival?

Only a few hundred hard-cores and media showed up

Name Al Gore’s hugetastic boat

Michelle Malkin has the pictures and story about Al Gore’s boat.

So what kind of boat do you think Mr. Green has?

And do you have a name for it?

Take a look at Gore’s boat here.

Hat tip: AC

The Churchill Series - Aug. 5, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

In yesterday’s series post, I said it was tough for me to write about Churchill’s role in the abdication crisis in 1936 brought about by King Edward VIII’s determination to marry the twice-divorced American socialite Wallis Simpson.

I simply don’t know enough to post now on the matter. I’ll continue reading various accounts and hope to post soon on it.

Today, I want to share with you a reader’s comment about Churchill that is on the money and helps explain why, just about alone among the Members of the Commons, Churchill, as it was said at the time, “took up the King’s cause.”

Winston Churchill was fanatically loyal to his friends, and to a set of ideas he held about British royalty. His wonderful mind was almost medieval in his fealty to these ideals.

Perhaps the best analogy is to religious faith. Those who have it are unshakable. So was Winston.

There’s a great deal of Churchill captured in that five-sentence comment. You could write a fine, lengthy Churchill book themed on just them.

I say some more about the comment tomorrow.