• Gay BlogAds


  • Gay News Watch


  • Chris Tweets



  • « GNW: Manhunt killed gay culture? | Main | Dem Platform weak on LGBT-onics »

    August 09, 2008

    The slo-mo outing of John Edwards

    Posted by: Chris

    Johnedwardsnightline The story of John Edwards' adulterous affair finally broke through the mainstream media barrier yesterday, after being almost completely ignored by every outlet except by the National Enquirer, which broke the story almost a year ago, and conservative media like Fox News and the National Review.

    To hear the complaints from the right, the MSM refused coverage because Edwards is a Democrat, a ludicrous assertion when you consider the saturation coverage Bill Clinton received not just as president but as a candidate for the office. In fact, the only media actually motivated by Edwards' politics were the likes of Fox and National Review, who no doubt would have ignored the story if a Republican presidential candidate was the focus.

    More directly on point, the MSM has almost completely ignored the juicy details concerning the way GOP nominee John McCain dumped his first wife, who underwent a debilitating car accident during his four years of captivity, when the lovely (and mega-wealthy) Cindy Henley came into the picture.

    Slate was one of the few outlets not from the right to touch the Edwards story before yesterday, speculating that the reason for the kid glove treatment wasn't Edwards' partisan affiliation but his sexual orientation. Comparing Edwards' late-night shenanigans outside the Beverly Hilton a few weeks ago to Larry Craig's notorious foot-tapping in the Minneapolis airport stall, the differing treatment could mean only one thing:

    So why hasn't the press commented on the [Edwards at the Hilton] story yet? Is it because … news organizations want to investigate it for themselves before writing about it? Or are they observing a double standard that says homo-hypocrisy is indefensible but that hetero-hypocrisy deserves an automatic bye? That's my sense.

    I'm inclined to disagree, especially with the idea that the Enquirer was doing the job the MSM should have by staking out the Beverly Hilton at 3 a.m. For one thing, the MSM refused to cover the Larry Craig story when it was at the same, speculative stage. Even though Mike Rogers and other outing activists had publicly accused Craig of being a closeted hypocrite, all but Craig's hometown paper refused to touch the story.

    It was the right call on both Craig and Edwards because tracking down rumors of hypocrisy concerning public figures should not reduce reporters to late-night stakeouts of hotel lobbies or restroom stalls. Even hypocritical public figures are entitled to some zone of privacy to live their lives. The official can certainly be asked about the rumors, but once denied there's no story absent public evidence to back it up.

    In Craig's case, it was his arrest and guilty plea; in Edwards' it was his own admission. Keep in mind that Edwards spilled his guts not because of tabloid coverage, as he claimed, but because the MSM was closing in on the story, including payments apparently made by to Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young, the putative father of her "love child," by the Edwards campaign finance chair.

    So as satisfying as it might be to use the example of Edwards to bemoan the MSM's reluctance to do its job, it's actually an example (like Craig) of the system working pretty much the way it should.

    |

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e553da21168833

    Comments

    1. rose on Aug 9, 2008 9:57:24 PM:

      So, Elizabeth Edwards knew about her husband's sexual affair with Rielle Hunter in 2006 and fully supported his run for the White House ??? Is she nuts?? No wonder the media tried to cover up John Edwards' affair. Exposing John's sex romp makes his wife look just as stupid as him.

      John really blew it. He should have claimed the baby was his from artificial insemination and the Rielle was a paid surrogate. When Rielle refused to give up the child, John wanted to talk to her alone. Elizabeth could have claimed full knowledge.

      If Obama didn't know what John Edwards was doing with his spare time (even though the Enquirer told him) and still had him as a VP candidate, then how is Obama going to figure the Iranians out? The answer: Obama knew.

    1. rose on Aug 9, 2008 9:58:11 PM:

      So, Elizabeth Edwards knew about her husband's sexual affair with Rielle Hunter in 2006 and fully supported his run for the White House ??? Is she nuts?? No wonder the media tried to cover up John Edwards' affair. Exposing John's sex romp makes his wife look just as stupid as him.

      John really blew it. He should have claimed the baby was his from artificial insemination and the Rielle was a paid surrogate. When Rielle refused to give up the child, John wanted to talk to her alone. Elizabeth could have claimed full knowledge.

      If Obama didn't know what John Edwards was doing with his spare time (even though the Enquirer told him) and still had him as a VP candidate, then how is Obama going to figure the Iranians out? The answer: Obama knew.

    1. Andoni on Aug 10, 2008 8:56:09 AM:

      I supported Edwards early on for the presidency. (I also supported Richardson and Obama). There was a time when I thought the following: "This is the Democrat's year. Why don't they just nominate a straight white guy and glide to victory. I'm not sure the country is ready for a woman or a black, so if the party is smart they will go with Edwards."

      I was wrong. Can you imagine the fix the Dems would be in if they had gone with Edwards and he was the presumptive nominee at this point in time?

      In a similar vein, I'm wondering if the National Enquirer (or maybe Larry Flynt) is doing some investigative reporting on the supposed affair Senator John McCain had with the female lobbyist that used to hang around his office and accompany him on his trips. If proof of that denied affair surfaces, that would be a bombshell.

    1. L. Wieseltier on Aug 10, 2008 1:56:46 PM:

      Hopefully, this will be the end of the disgusting and totally hypocritical careers of John and Elizabeth Edwards. Both of them were a disgrace to the country. Good riddance.

    1. Geena on Aug 10, 2008 2:31:20 PM:

      Edwards should never have been in this race. The results of Iowa may have been completely different, bringing a totally different outcome for Biden, Hillary, Richardson.
      The Democratic Party owes this man nothing, and Edwards owes his donors a refund. He did not even have the decency to apologize to his opponents.

    1. Father Faggot on Aug 10, 2008 5:10:18 PM:

      There are times when good people do bad things,
      and when bad people do good things.
      Got over it.

    1. Scott on Aug 11, 2008 10:08:44 AM:

      If Edwards wasn't in the race Hillary would have won the Democratic nomination. Maybe that's the reason the media ignored the story for so long.

      Anti-gay prejudice in the media will show in how they cover it from here on out. I am still hearing people talk about Larry Craig a year later and all he did was tap his feet. David Vitter was exposed to have a diaper fetish among other things and was pretty much left alone by the media because he had affair with a woman.

    1. Hawyer on Aug 14, 2008 9:53:10 PM:

      My reaction to the "Edwards Bimbo Eruption" was mixed and multicultural:

      My first impulse was wishing that we shared the political culture of France - where zipper-gates are grist for late-night TV comedians but utterly irrelevant in electoral calculus. Because I always liked Edwards and thought he was a class act unrepentant liberal in a field of mealy mouth centrist capitulaters

      My second impulse was an eerie deja vu of Bill Clinton post Monica: furious at this Democratic political phenom for his lowbrow narcissistic trashy indulgence which gave every right-wing ideologue a guided tour through the worst figments of their collective puritanical imaginations - the media frenzy of which accelerated his national political career to terminal velocity.

      Like Andrew Sullivan opines on the infamous infidelity of gay relationships - "well they're, well males" - summarizing the all encompassing neurosis of the penis.



    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad