He's not really in the public life anymore, so I don't really think people care. But, of course, they're going to cover it. Everyone loves hypocrisy! And love children.

He's no longer in the Senate, so unless Edwards is picked as Obama's running mate the story isn't news. Larry Craig is a current U.S. Senator so his arrest was news; Mark Foley's story broke with emails to teenagers. The Enquirer is the only source with no hard evidence (photos, emails, named witnesses), and in the past Edwards has denied its claim, so legitimate news organizations really shouldn't be covering.
So far, all the Enquirer can say for sure is that its photographers caught Edwards in the basement of a hotel at which a woman the Enquirer claims is his mistress was staying (did they confirm that - photos of her there, her name registered?). Oddly, that hotel was filled with reporters for the TV Critics Association press tour - apparently not very observant reporters - and how dumb is Edwards for choosing that hotel?

This is big news because Edwards could have been the Democratic nominee right now, and have this scandal break. Before this story broke, he was rumored to be on the short list to be President Obama's Secretary of State. To ignore these 2 facts as Stephley is and offering rationalizations shows the same type of hypocracy that CNN and the other big news outlets are. Stories with less credibility than these that involve Republicans get lots of press with CNN and the rest of the liberal agenda news networks. Case in point, the New York Times attempted smear job of John McCain a few months back.

Nope, it's an unsubstantiated rumor. Get one hard fact, then run it like crazy, but get one hard fact first.

Brendel, google George Bush and Jennifer Fitzgerald if you want to learn about a similar story that the main stream media was reluctant to pursue and never did run with the way it has others. Obviously, it involves a prominent Republican for whom family values was a key issue, and could have played nicely with the Clinton story.
The Times story is a good example of what happens when a legitimate organization goes public with a story that it hasn't or can't substantiate, which is my problem with the Edwards story.

Don't tell me to get hard facts and then go and google things. If that's how you and Rosie O'Donnell get your information, you can be Google scholars all by yourself.

Do you really think the liberal news media isn't subjective with what they run as stories? Fox news ran stories on Jeremiah Wright before the CNN's of the world deemed it newsworthy. NY Times ran an unsubstantiated smear job on John McCain and an alleged affair with a lobbyist. Those are facts for which we don't need Google to substantiate.

Conservatives aren't so dim that they can't tell that Fox tells stories from a conservative point of view. The Edwards story shreds the credibility of yet another prominent Democrat, and that kinda thing will get reported on Fox first. The liberal outlets (CNN, NPR, NY Times, etc) will go the opposite way and routinely do. Liberals are either too dim to see media bias on BOTH sides, or they are lying to themselves, or both.

Doesn't John Edwards' wife have cancer? What a toolbox. Agreed with Brendwoman on media bias here. This won't make CNN until next week.

It's not just liberal vs. conservative that matters in this world! There are no hard facts for the legitimate press to report - the Times shouldn't have reported the McCain story without hard evidence. No one should report the Edwards story unless they have hard evidence. You actually are arguing in support of reporting rumors as news - which then causes everyone to condemn the press as trivial. Maybe they should all have reporters following Edwards and the woman - but in a month when 900 newspaper jobs have been lost, I'm not sure that's money well spent.

I only suggested google because I knew what information was there - I know the Bush/Fitzgerald story from personal knowledge - I was offering you sources, other than my own claim, as you have a better chance at verifying what you read online than you do anything I tell you.

stephley!

"I've had my fingers crammed in my ears, doing the la-la-la-can't-hear-you song, all week."

Ha! Me, too.

As for the media covering their doubts over whether they should cover this...the media's been doing that kind of thing a lot lately.

The media will report this kind of stuff, still unsubstantiated, but they mostly ignore it when McCain gets his facts mixed up on the campaign trail.

Very much agreed, janneth!

I am a liberal but I do think this should be investigated. Depending on what your political affiliation is, we are all biased and never want to hear anything bad about people from our own party.
However, I do think the mainstream media should do more in depth research as to weather or not the claims are real. In this respect this case is different from Larry Craig. The source in the Larry Craig story was credible, the police.
Do I think this warrants a deeper look? Yes.
Do I think we have become to obsessed with sensationalized news? Yes. No matter what party, it is not right to make some one's private life the center of the news and drag their family through the mud.

BrendelWoman, their are biases in the news media both LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE. What about when Fox news REPEATEDLY reported that senator Larry Craig was a democrat when the scandal broke out? Not once, not twice, repeatedly. No matter what the station there will always be biases as the stations and news anchors themselves are only human beings with bias.
I will be the first to admit that the liberal bias exists, but do us all a favor and don't pretend that the conservative news bias doesn't exist and that Fox news are angels and report on everything first.
And don't pretend that Fox news is subjective.
Get off your soapbox lady.

The same people who breathless await the next People Magazine to find out why Ferris Bueller is cheating on Sarah Jessica and if Jennifer Aniston is going to find happiness with John Mayer are declaring The Breck Girl's infidelity and love child off limits...because he is a private citizen? Since when did celebrities get to declare themselves private citizens and the media comply? The lib media bias is so blatant these days. I noticed the media sanctioned Vanity Fair for daring to bring up Bubba's continued infidelities. Where were the cries when the New York Times made up a story about John McCain cheating on his wife? All the media loved that story.

"isn't" correction from previous post.

i hope there's more to this story and it isn't true. i

Of course this is newsworthy and should be examined to find out the truth. It's been rumored that he was a Vice-Presidential candidate or in line for a cabinet post if Obama gets elected. If his wif has cancer, the poor man isn't getting sex. What should he do about this? Have an affair?

The only thing that is newsworthy about Edwards is that he is an also ran for the 08 election. I hope and wish he would fade into oblivion, like the other democratic also rans...

I think the media not reporting this is not out of respect for Edwards as it is more out of respect of his wife.

However, he is news worthy. He JUST ran for president and continues to make money in the public eye.

Guess the press should pick up the Matthew Broderick story from the Star too, he makes money in the public eye.

Actually, I have heard the Matthew Broderick story on main stream media. Come to think of it, I have heard it more than Edwards and his story.

No one is arguing that they should not pick up the story, but in actuality that story is out there more than Edwards and whatever love child he may or may not have.

By running 'should we be covering it' articles, the press does get it out there without having to deal with the details it can't/won't confirm and to a lesser extent the 'we don't want to hurt Elizabeth by actually reporting this' aspect.

Your post confused me a bit. Are you speaking of citizen alone, or the media as a whole?

LOL! I'm sorry I just keep hearing Diana Ross & The Supremes (Love Child....).

I first heard of this as it was broke on FOX news during the Hannity & Colms show and I must say that Mr. Hannity was very respectful and made it clear more than once that at the time this was speculation.

As for the Senator you know God bless him he's human like the rest of us, fallible like the rest of us, and he will fall on his face like the rest of us at one point or another. Our society has become so preoccupied with a fall from grace that we often miss ascensions of wisdom where one becomes better than they were before.

IMO if this is true he should simply come forward a.s.a.p. and depending on the circumstances the American public will forgive him. However, if he waits too long and it is true giving the impression that he's hiding and lying he might as well hang up any aspirations of high political office.

Hunter, the media as a whole. I once risked getting fired because I refused to write a story around a soundbite of a woman giving all the juicy details from an Enquirer story - the producer wanted the story in the show, but wanted it presented in such a way that we could claim our hands were clean. That time, the executive producer heard about the dispute and killed the idea - but it had worked in the past and in other cases after that.

Hypno, I agree Edwards has to figure out how to come clean on this - he probably should have admitted to an affair the first time the Enquirer brought it up. Now he's added the stupidity of (allegedly) being in a paparazi-ridden hotel and acting like a criminal when he ran into the Enquirer reporter. If you wanted something kept secret, should you be at the Beverly Hilton???

I understand your point, however I was just saying in response to your Matthew Broadrick comment that his story is in the media more than Edwards and that if you are in the public eye this does get covered. Whether you are a former presidential candidate, or the head of a non-profit in a small town, if you are involved in something along these lines, it has people interested and does get reported.

What interests people isn't necessarily news - and everyone who has an affair isn't news. Broderick is gossip, nothing else - a handful of lives would be affected by his affair.

Edwards is gossip thus far. It's news if any of it can be substantiated. That Edwards might have a girlfriend and child has been around for almost a year at least - the legitimate press has had time to confirm it. This Enquirer story still is unnamed sources, no pictures. He has been reported as a possible, if unlikely, vice-presidential choice and a possible attorney general nominee which puts the press in a slightly tougher position than usual. Does it have a responsibility to be extra careful right now?
If the legitimate press picked up every rumor about the people who might be chosen by either candidate, wouldn't this be a perfect time to float stories about everyone you fear on the other side?

Are you saying more lives would be affected by Edwards rather than Broadrick? Ask Gary Hart how rumors turned out for him.

Gary Hart had the same rumors (well, minus a love child) and the media decided to look into it. We are talking about newspapers like The New York Times, Miami Herald (I am sure we can all agree that are not gossip magazines). The papers were acting only on hunch and began to look into their anonymous calls. They staked outside his home and put two and two together with their rumors. However, who else broke the story with them (with those oh-so-devastating photos), The National Enquirer.

I am not saying everyone should be brought out to the light and cast out of society. However, if you don't want assumptions, rumors, constant questions and people scrutinizing you and your family you don't go into the public sector. Whether it is a movie star, athlete, politician. These people cannot be that naive to not know what the media is like these days.

Is this true Johnny boy?

Hart is a very different story. It wasn't just a hunch. There had been separations in the Hart marriage and years of rumors, he stupidly invited the press to follow him, the newspapers got anonymous details that checked out - pieces fell together right and left. The Herald published a story before the Monkey Business picture made the Enquirer. So far all Edwards is is a couple of National Enquirer stories - which the others have had time to check out and build on. Once there are facts, photographs, details that check out -the legitimate press should run with it.

Edwards' story indirectly does impact more people than Broderick - he's a possible vice presidential or Cabinet candidate. A scandal would take him out of the running. A scandal could cloud, stall or end his effectiveness in his anti-poverty work. The Broderick story isn't of real importance to any of us - it's nastiness that's just this side of legal.

It SOUNDS as if you're saying that all public figures should simply expect scrutiny and for all the press to go with any rumors they have. We don't tolerate giving total freedom to snoop and spout to the neighborhood gossip so why should we hold people whose products we buy to a lesser standard?

Edwards is a private citizen being accused of a lapse in judgment and ethics, not a crime.

Senator or not, soliciting sex in a bathroom stall is illegal and I can bet you that though it might not have made the national news if Craig had been a private citizen, the bust would have at least made the local paper's police blotter. And sexually harassing students (or however it was spun)in a government program may not be "illegal", but certainly any official doing so answers to the public.

This is nobody's business, and the "what if" of Edwards possible nomination, although interesting, is moot. You all already decided that you didn't want him for the job. Does being able to pick him out from a crowd justify allocating resources to dig up dirt on him for the rest of his life? Can you imagine if any of your potential employers continued to not only investigate you but publish their findings long after they took you our of the running for the job?

I think it's unfortunate that this gossip is spread about anyone but I think that, while we shouldn't invade stars' privacy, if stuff comes to light about an actor or entertainer it's different. Those are people whose relationship with the public is often commercial, and their bankability is dependent on their likability. You might not like someone who cheats on his wife which is a perfectly good reason not to go see a movie or buy a perfume. Your embargo directly affects their personal success and profit. Why should that jerk get any of your money?

But this country prides itself on a long history of personal freedom and I can't believe that people who so vehemently and overwhelmingly claim the right to keep government from telling them what to do in their own homes do not hesitate to dictate the very same to anyone who's dared to run for office.

Public service is a job, not a lifestyle choice. And maybe if we treated it as such, we could get some perspective.

Stephley, yes, I know that the Enquirer had the Monkey Business photos and the other papers had the story (thus what I said in my post). We are just going to have to disagree on this one.

It is noble to say that public service is a job and not a lifestyle. However, those who enter it for the majority have an ego in which is suited for such a lifestyle.

The story should be investigated and proven true before reported. I think its pretty shady and cowardly for the media to report on it within the context of "should we report on this" thats like saying to someone else "well my friend told me to keep her affair a secret, do you think i should?" ummmm, kinda just spilled the beans right there! just as damaging, if not more so, and cowardly to boot!

get the facts then report the story. why is tht so hard? what do they teach in journalism schools nowadays???

If you read the all of the articles noted as sources in this piece: they read that Andrew Young has admitted to being the father of Ms. Hunter's child.

I actually first heard this Edwards story about a year ago. The alleged mistress had been moved into a home in a private community conveniently near Edwards' campaign headquarters, and one of Edwards' senior campaign staffers had claimed paternity.

The fact that he is not currently in public office is irrelevant, he still has power and connections and will presumably return to public service in some capacity.

Yes, it's bad to cheat on your spouse, specially when that spouse is terminally ill. However, her presumably somewhat delicate condition has probably had an affect on their marriage, and I could understand some human weakness. I just wish politicians would be honest and forthright about these things. The coverup is nearly always worse than the original transgression. He should just confess to a moment of weakness, ask public forgiveness, and move on.

I agree Laine, dealing with this head-on is the only smart thing Edwards can do. He did deny the claim last year - and Amanda's right, someone else has said they are the child's father. If they're telling the truth, just say it again now.

"what do they teach in journalism schools nowadays???"
Obviously I'm not in school now but I know that as I was ending my career, 'what people want to know' and 'what are they talking about around the water cooler/over the back fence' were becoming more important to the executive producers - hearings were boring, financial investigations cost too much. It was becoming less about leading the discussions and more about being able to join in and appear relevant. The reality is money - if the guy airing the dirty linen is getting the viewers, what do you do?

For me, I just put no faith what so ever in the National Enquirer. Since they are the leading source on this topic, an no other outlet has found anything else to confirm this story...I am taking a pass on it.

Overall, I really don't care about politician's love lives. Seriously. If the story is true, his wife is going to be hurting. I don't really see that it would make that much difference to anyone but his wife and kids.

"get the facts then report the story"

"In this respect this case is different from Larry Craig. The source in the Larry Craig story was credible, the police."

I agree with both of these statements!

Newsworthy no, gossip worthy, yes, hence the fact a gossip rag, The National Enquirer, reported on it.

If The National Enquirer wants to devote resources to further investigate the story, they should go for it. This type of gossip is right up their alley.

Do I want any further investigation from a news source? No, because new sources report facts, and gossip rags report gossip and innuendo.

It's sad to me that people consider gossip mags like The National Enquirer legitimate sources of news. No wonder the rest of the media has dumb itself down.

Ask me this AFTER someone besides Fox News and National Enquirer reports on it.

"Ask me this AFTER someone besides Fox News and National Enquirer reports on it."

Exactly!

I'm intersted in finding out why people were banned from talking about it.

You know what I never understood the (law) surrounding Sen. Craig's circumstances. Why is it illegal to ask some one in a public restroom if they want to have sex?

Now don't get me wrong I certainly understand why it is illegal to commit the act of sex in a public restroom, or to offer $ for sex which would be prostitution. But for instance if Sen. Craig sees a hot guy in a restroom and there's obvious mutual interest I just don't see what is so wrong with saying hey you wanna go....????

As long as they take it some where like, get a room, I dont' see what the problem is.

Undave, the whole thing is very strange. When trying to do more research on it I found that like everyone else has said there is NOTHING on mainstream media about this story. There are however opinion blogs from the LA times website that supposedly banned all blogs about the subject. And some of the blogs are recent. One of the blogs even has an "update" saying something like the blogs were taken down but upon internal discussion put back up. The whole thing is weird.
I don't know if Edwards did anything or not but as far as material that is out there to support it there isn't much. There are a lot of blogs about it, opinions etc. but nothing about the evidence. The National Enquirer says they have pictures and video but have not posted them anywhere.
If anyone has anymore links or info please link it.

This is said to be the email message LA Times bloggers got from the editor:

From: "Pierce, Tony"
Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT
To: [XXX]
Subject: john edwards
Hey bloggers,

There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.
If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask
---------------

Slate says audiences should be allowed to make up their minds about these things. I don't believe the public right to know is so sweeping that any rumor about a politician can fairly be aired.

hypnoticmix--one of Larry Craig's charges was basically invading the officer's privacy by trying to look at him while he was in the bathroom stall. Apparently, before he entered his own stall, LC was trying to get a glimpse of the officer, so that seems reasonable. The other charge is a little more tenuous. It was for disorderly conduct--which says:
". . . (3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others."

Maybe the foot tap/touch thing is offensive? Sliding your hand under the stall? I'm not sure how they concluded his conduct was disorderly. Asking another person in public if they want to go have sex in private is certainly not illegal. if it were, we'd have to arrest pretty much everyone in bars/clubs across the country.

This picture of JE now looks creepy under the title. This really isn't news. We should all know by now that politicians are sleazy. They cheat on their spouses, take money from corporations, get involved in wars for personal reasons. It's already established that McCain is sketchy, it's only a matter of time before Obama's sordid past comes to light. I guess JE's lovechild should be reported when there are facts. But so should that women in the trailer park who gave birth to the alien twins.

Thanks javsmav that's pretty much what I thought but since the officer answered in kind and showed interest my question would be how could it be considered "offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others."

As for the looking through the crack of the stall door there in lie the shades of grey. If he stopped and peered into the stall with his eye against the crack then yeah, but if it was just a glance as he says just to see if the stall was occupied then no big deal.

Getting back to John Edwards if the allegations are true how foolish of him to arrange to meet this lady in the most high profile paparazzi magnet hotel like The Beverly Hilton. Those fools camp out there and he should have known better.