-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Pigeon O’Brien, the one-time friend of John Edwards’s mistress Rielle Hunter who publicly called him out for lying in the Nightline interview where he confessed to the affair — but not to fathering Hunter’s child, which in fact he did. At HuffPo today, she reveals that she was one of the first sources for the National Enquirer story on the affair. It turns out that quite a few reporters had reached out to her, and when she decided to call them back the Enquirer was not her first choice:
One day, I simply stepped off the treadmill while exercising and picked up the phone. I didn’t even know what I was doing. But I found myself calling a publication that had left a voicemail I’d deleted inquiring about Rielle. I was going to confirm.
To my surprise, nothing happened. I got all braved up and no one would take my call. I hadn’t noted who called me, so I got a receptionist. “Can I speak with the person writing about the, um, John Edwards affair?” I ventured. “John Edwards… affair?” Sneered the receptionist. I might as well have asked for the person writing about hating cute puppies.
My second call was to a big newspaper. They had called, repeatedly, and clearly were well versed in the affair whispers. Carefully, anonymously, I asked what would happen if I said anything. There was nothing they could do, they said, unless I went on the record and they used my name. Well, no. But I saw light and I just didn’t stop.
My third call was to the National Enquirer.
Mickey Kaus asks (in the midst of a post that’s well worth reading): “If so much of the MSM knew or suspected the story was true, why was it subequently so easily cowed by the efforts of John and Elizabeth Edwards to cover it up?”
I assume that’s a rhetorical question, as the answer is obvious: They really, really didn’t want the story to be true. If you can picture a Republican candidate evoking the same sentimentality in reporters, you have a more vivid imagination than I do.
View all comments (11) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/03/03/john-edwards-and-the-see-no-ev
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 1:50AM
Well, of course the Liberals liked him. He's a scumbag medical malpractice attorney.
Spicy Joker| 3.4.11 @ 1:54AM
This isn't speculation. The LA Slimes ordered its reporters to not cover the John Edwards scandal. Yet the LA Slimes had no problem covering Republican infidelity.
beebop| 3.4.11 @ 5:51AM
Isn't it clear? Some of us are more worthy than others. And apparently the "sign" of privilege is the pronounced "D" at the end of the sentence. There would have been no article or coverage of Reverand Wright had the nonMSM -- including the blogosphere -- not had material that could not be disputed. Oh. Right. He wasn't there .... How foolish of us to draw the conclusion that the man who said he travelled home to see his family and attend religious services in his home town migh.actually.go.to.church.
Bill G.| 3.4.11 @ 6:57AM
In the same time frame that the Left Stream Media was ignoring this, they were all over the non-affair of Juan McCain - his business lunch with a woman was all the proof needed to slam him.
That "D" after the name acts as a shield. It's time to break the shield.
nohype| 3.4.11 @ 7:55AM
It is worth remembering that most of the people who got all concerned about whether Sarah Palin was qualified to serve as VP were the same people who thought John Edwards, one of the most obvious phonies in politics, was a great choice for the VP slot.
The current replay of the Edwards story is the media's unwillingness to report negatively on Obama. Without the protection of the media, the approval rating of this disastrous presidency would be in the teens.
Brian In MA| 3.4.11 @ 7:57AM
Nothing underlines the bias in the MSM more than the coverage of the Edwards affair. I think the contrast with the coverage of Gary Hart 20 years earlier is particularly interesting and I sincerely hope that Edwards isn't able to resurrect his political carreer at some point in the future.
Pelligrino| 3.4.11 @ 8:00AM
This is the same lousy media that was "ready to full-rumble" with the fabricated tales of then S. Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nicky Haley's extramarital affairs.
Watchdogs for the Republic? Ha!
Yet so many -- including even readers and writers who frequent Am. Spectator, National Review, etc. -- will still give some credit to the Washington Post, NT Times (the NYT is cited here in this online site EVERY week usually several times), LA Times, NBC, CBS, CNN etc., etc. as we collectively vet and try to decide what candidates are best for the nation in 2012.
Run this story OVER & OVER to remind people that the MSM cannot be trusted. It has NO credibility. Zip.
FastJohnny| 3.4.11 @ 9:00AM
The MSM doesn't want to smear the other America that Edwards has referred to in the past. That other America of priviledged snobs who feel they know what's best for the great unwashed masses, those people like Edwards, Kerry and Teddy, get a pass from those soy latte sipping, deep and brooding pseudo-philosophers that call themselves reporters.
Sounds Marxist, right? Well, it isn't. I am not talking about class and strata (who cares about that: it is, was and always will be in a society), I am talking about a-holes like the MSM, Kerry, Edwards and others of that ilk.
astorian| 3.4.11 @ 11:58AM
Would the MSM have sat on a similarly embarrassing story regarding a prominent Republican? Well, maybe. After all, liberal reports in the MSM knew for many years that Strom Thurmond fathered a child out of wedlock with a black woman, but that never made headlines (rather, it was something whispered about for decades).
To be sure, some conservative Republicans have been humiliated in the media for their own peccadilloes, but that’s often happened after a very public scandal or an arrest. If reporters had simply SUSPECTED that Larry Craig was gay, I strongly doubt whether he’d have been hounded by the press for that… but once he was caught and arrested in a public bathroom, well of COURSE liberas were going to make hay of it!
Oldefarte| 3.4.11 @ 1:40PM
Of course the MSM didn't want to acknowledge this story, since a DEMOCRAT was the object; just as they didn't acknowledge the sleazy doings of CAMELOT'S deciples!!!!!!!!
Dee See| 3.6.11 @ 12:32AM
---Cool! ---whatever
NOW, back to that TREASON issue
and the trifling matter of organizing
that HUAC meets NUREMBERG inquest
and tribunal. REALLY
BACK!
BACK-----------------
BACK----------------------------------