Obligatory per Jack Shafer at Slate.
Yet, if the press craves consistency, it owes its readers some sort of assessment of Edwards.
Corrente readers know all too well that the media doesn't "crave consistency" at all. We're not press, but we are "media." And I'd rather resemble a rotting stump than the press. So here's the obligatory Enquirer/Drudge-sourced sex post. I'm desperately uncomfortable allowing such sources to shape my opinions (thus my exclusion from the OFB
.)
As the sad story seems to become increasingly confirmed, I find myself vacillating from disgust with tabloids, to sadness for a potential setback to antipoverty efforts and the erosion of progressive moral high ground, to feminist anger on behalf of Elizabeth and the children involved.
I believed that the Clintons' private lives were none of our business because there were few implications for public policy. I believed that Republicans too eager to invade our private lives surrender some expectations of privacy. Hypocrisy and relevance to public policy were decisive in determining whether personal failings are important for public discourse.
I'm a values voter to whom character matters. A politician's socially unjust and anti-environmental ethical laxity disturbs me and my home planet more than his marital laxity.
It was all clear to me... until the Edwards case, which to me falls in a gray area bordering on black (black = it is indeed news). Edwards has not made federal patrol of marriage and private behavior a policy hallmark. But he has made compassion for those less fortunate his hallmark. His family, though without his exploitation, did became a very public symbol of compassion and marital support.
Another question: Should the media run with something this serious without corroborating video or photos? I've felt the evidence was too slim for the McCain rape joke and calling his wife c***. There's plenty enough to discredit McCain into oblivion without that. Truthiness sucks equally from right or left.
- BoGardiner's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Opinion Culture: we're in print here
Good topic for discussion, thanks Bo.
Although we need to hold all officials to the same standards, I'm not sure there's really a story here yet--sometimes there is, and the papers have more on background than they're telling us, or they just get lucky; other times it's a total lie.
What I question is the story of Edwards in the bathroom for 15 minutes and not taking at all to the press. Guilty? Or "poetic" exaggeration on the reporters' parts? 15 min. or a quick stop to get help? (which wouldn't take 15 min. in that hotel usually even at that time of night.) Also, sounds to me as if they were blocking his way out.
Many people in public life have done self-indulgent and irresponsible things, yes. But I don't know what Edwards is really guilty of here. What's the point in reporting it? Isn't it that the reporters are being afraid of being left behind?
Are we afraid also, in places like this blog, of appearing too uncynical?
"As the sad story seems to become increasingly confirmed"--can we have some links NOT sourced to Drudge, who has proved himself willing to smear lots of people, sometimes correctly and sometimes not? Doesn't anyone remember the manufactured Kerry staffer scandal where the intern Alexandra Polier was in Africa and that Drudge ran without contacting her?
Read what Polier wrote about what happened and her research in tracking down what had happened. It's important to us as internet writers. Near the end, she wrote: "I am struck by the pitiful state of political reporting, which is dominated by the unholy alliance of opposition research and its latest tool, the Internet. Even the Wall Street Journal’s Website ran Drudge’s story, with only a brief disclaimer that his stories weren’t always accurate."
Of the people she interviewed later, mainly this part about Frum struck me:
"(David)Frum was merely working with the rumors that everyone else was spreading around. That’s how opinion culture has evolved, and it’s been enabled by the Internet. Who cares if you’re wrong? As it happens, Frum says he does.
“I regret it,” he says now. “I read it in the paper, I heard it gossiped about, but I didn’t do anything like reporting. I joked about it on the Internet in a way I would at dinner. Then I learned the Net is like print, not like dinner.”"
May be premature, but some liberal bloggers
are taking the position that it's better to acknowledge the uproar.
I took the cue from a couple. Jeralyn at TalkLeft:
... Lee Stranahan, an Edwards and Obama supporter at HuffPo,
plus several indications like this that suggest this is increasingly being found credible by MSM.
I was torn during the primary between Edwards and Clinton, have met Edwards, sent him money and admire him. This was posted in the spirit of open discussion; there are good arguments for and against doing so. Lambert, feel free to delete this post if you consider it premature.
Note: There are many suggestions floating around the Net, such as Sarah's here, that this story is a hoax with right or left political motivations, depending on the views of the teller.
Heavens!
I would never delete a post like this. Who am I to say what is "premature"?
Whichever commenter asked "Why now?" has a point, though. Particularly with, it seems, no pictures or first hand information. Smells a little fishy.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
I never was a big Edwards fan
although I voted for him in the 04 primary. I would say that if he is the voice of anti-poverty concerns in this country then we are in trouble. I find it hard to imagine that there is any real political intrigue here however; likely, the Enquirer merely caught a person of notoriety in a compromising position, which is, um, pretty much their stock and trade, not that I give a happy damn. Kinda feel bad for Elizabeth and the family though.
I fiercely don't care
about Edwards's private life. I resent the pollution of public discourse with this stuff. It's killing us, dammit. And it's not just Edwards, it's anyone in public life, unless there is obvious relevance to the public good.
Me too
I don't want to give the thing any oxygen. Who cares?
Does he kill and/or torture helpless animals, like the Republicans do? No? Well, I don't care much, then, one way or the other.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
The Enquirer told this story as first-hand witnesses
So if it isn't true they would be malicious and defamatory, which takes them outside of 1st amendment protection (NYT v Sullivan)
My issue isn't Edwards getting caught with his hand in the nookie jar, it's who tipped off the Enquirer and why?
They were staked out at the hotel waiting for Edwards to arrive, they didn'y follow him or run into him by accident.
Somebody dropped a dime on him. Who was it, and why did they do it?
------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm
Another Rorschach
Most Repubs are just gleefully pointing at Edwards; meanwhile some PUMAs blame Obama and some Obama supporters blame HRC. Rove is getting some suspicious looks too. I won't link, but conspiracy theorists are having a field day out there.
They said they were tipped
1. These papers PAY people--often have them on some kind of retainer or commission at major celeb hotels
2. they are following the lady already (which is why she moved into a gated community--okay that and money)
3. do you think the Enquirer hasn't been sued before, for exactly this kind of thing, and lost? Seriously, please realize that THEY MAKE STUFF UP TO SELL PAPERS and just count on selling enough papers to pay for the lawsuits. I couldn't find it again but I remember that Lucille Ball won a lawsuit against them for claiming they had seen her in a hospital with a broken toe--when she had never even broken her toe. Ball said she didn't care--but it was time to sue to try to slow them down on making up stories. Of course, I googled for it but this story may be too old to exist on the internet--wonderful how they are now dumping many stories from as late as 2006--that's old history, doesn't matter!
There are two stories here: 1. another attempt to keep John off the ballot (GOP? Or people who want to blame John himself so they can keep him off the ballot and down as a politicial force?)
, it's a threefer: hurts Hillary because it brings up Bill's now long-ago cheating (guilt by association) AND hurts John personally (by rumor) AND portrays the Democratic brand as being cheaters and not living up to what they promise.)
2. a story about lives and politics, the thoughts of spouses not being faithful, especially when they have an ill spouse, and politicians not being as moral as they have portrayed themselves. (As far as the GOP and the opposing OFB
It's got that nice GOP spin that Obama's been adopting: bringing it up spreads it and defending him seems impossible with "what if he's guilty?" doubts.
What's the best response?
I'm not a journalist
I'm a diarist discussing my feelings about news that much of America is talking about. This still comes with responsibility.
I'm perennially fascinated with my own and others' biases, and how we filter information. Confirmation bias, dissonance theory, that sort of thing.
In any case, so we're not blindsided, be aware that Alex Koppelman at Salon says the Enquirer is often wrongly confused with the alien-baby-story tabloids, is "surprisingly good at reporting on these kinds of stories, and it has a decent track record with them." They were the source for the Gary Hart and Limbaugh painkiller scandals.
As for who is hurt by this story, before we let our biases turn it into a GOP plot, there are those saying that this will mostly hurt McCain by reminding folks of the NYTimes' allegation of his affair with a lobbyist. (An allegation with far thinner evidence than the Enquirer presents.) I tend to agree, and think this hurts McCain more than anyone (beyond the Edwards family, of course).
Nobody Cares
the MSM has never covered Edwards this election cycle and that's why they aren't covering this (which is fine by me, I agree these stories are a distraction).
I presume the Nat'l Enquirer doesn't really care either in the sense that Edwards sells papers (I doubt very much that he does). I suspect to the extent they care at all it's to show they were right in October when everyone dissed them. (Whether they were right or not, I have no idea. I suspect they are telling the truth about Edwards at the hotel, which either makes them right or Edwards an idiot or, come to think of it, both.)
I don't think this is some plot to keep Edwards' poverty work out of the limelight. It's rarely in the limelight and Obama sure as hell isn't going to make solving poverty job one regardless of any position might have in his Administration (and that includes Vice President). The press doesn't need this to keep from covering Edwards' work. They already don't cover Edwards' work. And, frankly, while I admire Edwards' work in this area, it isn't so much more influential or greater than what others are doing that it's critical to shut it down. To the extent Edwards was once some sort of threat, he isn't anymore and won't be any time in the near future.