Byron York
Why the Media Ignored a Scandal

SHARE THIS:
Share

Two weeks before the 2008 Iowa caucuses, the National Enquirer published a detailed story reporting that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had had an affair, and that the woman involved -- campaign videographer Rielle Hunter -- was pregnant, and that Edwards had arranged for an aide to falsely claim to be the father, and that Hunter and the aide and the aide's family were being taken care of financially by a wealthy Edwards supporter.

It was, to say the least, explosive.

At the time, Edwards was a serious contender in the Democratic presidential race, so when the story was published, his aides prepared for what some believed would be an onslaught of media scrutiny.

But it didn't happen. Although Edwards could not have known it at the time, it turned out that many journalists just didn't want to report the news and didn't try very hard to uncover the facts.

The tale is told in the new book "The Politician" by former Edwards aide and confidant Andrew Young, the man who, at Edwards' insistence, claimed that he, and not the candidate, was the father of Hunter's child.

By mid-December 2007, Edwards knew the Enquirer story was coming. With Iowa fast approaching, he came up with an I'm-not-the-father cover-up scheme, believing that having Young claim paternity would deflect blame away from the candidate himself. "It's going to be a one-day story, Andrew," Edwards told Young, according to Young's account. "No offense, but the press doesn't give a s--t about you."

Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE
Byron York's Biography
Byron York, chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner
Join the Debate
92 Comments So Far
« Previous1234Next »
Rick Wrote: Feb 11, 2010 10:37 AM
hinting that if instead of Edwards, or any other Democratic nominee, that this news, if about Huckabee, Romney, Joe "the plumber", Sarah Palin's daughter, or anyone remotely tied to Republicans, would have hit the news that day after "Enquirer" broke it? Come on are you sure? Are you telling us that Obernut, Matthard, Stewartall and others missed this...how about wonderful, compassionate Jeannie Garafalo-nut...did she say anything?
It's just down right hard to imagine that all the news outlets would refuse to discuss this...the Times, Post, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, ABC...all of them missed it...all of them...gee whiz what is the news doing these days that, that could happen...just pitiful...down right shameful!! I wonder if it taught them anything?
Oh well, we at least learned what John's "two worlds" meant!!
lbs Wrote: Feb 10, 2010 9:41 AM
the only people watching the msm is their socialist one third of our population. msm did't want to pi** off the one third they have left. every time i see ratings posted of the media outlets, i cannot believe that they can still attract advertisers. we can help to push them over the cliff by never mentioning their names nor the outlet from which they spew.
lbs Wrote: Feb 10, 2010 9:40 AM
the only people watching the msm is their socialist one third of our population. msm did't want to pi** off the one third they have left. every time i see ratings posted of the media outlets, i cannot believe that they can still attract advertisers. we can help to push them over the cliff by never mentioning their names nor the outlet from which they spew.
Alan Wrote: Feb 10, 2010 2:44 AM
finds it difficult to smear their fellow-travelers. Substitute the name of a conservative, well-known or even obscure. What a party! Plain dishonesty!
And, with Conservatives and Liberals, 'Sorry', as coming from such as Emanuel, means 'Sorry I was caught'. Plain dishonesty!
Leonard Wrote: Feb 10, 2010 2:18 AM
"Why the Media Ignored a Scandal"

The article does not provide the answer to the question. Why? Perhaps Byron can do a follow-up to provide the answer. Or perhaps the answer is too inflammatory? So what's the answer Byron?
Dag Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 4:54 PM
I wil also note the flappy lipped one readily admitted he hadn't successfully quit smoking, that it was however, "coming along", thereby absolutely confirming the massive press cover-up ongoing.
I'm certain Chrissy got another tingle up his leg when Rham or Axel made it explicitly clear that Chrissy would be required to ask prezzy to be this specific question in his friendly spittle drooling manner so flappy boy the liar con artist could issue his canned reply.
Yes, only a MORON wouldn't have it figured out after that.
Dumbo hadn't quit, the press continued to cover it up, and the bottom line is, at expense of job and perhaps one's life, don't you DARE expose the libtard once he is in office, even when you catch him with his nicotine stained fingers.
Dag Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 4:21 PM
We still have no idea concerning the depths of depravity of the democrat's politicians.
To this very day hundreds of deeply disturbing crimes and charades are covered up forever for the demcorats.
Take Obama's smoking, on the campaign trail, surrounded by reporters, and not a single picture or videotape surfaces, and there is no way flappy lips could hide that nicotine breath.
Chrissy the tingle tingle Matthews finally asked him how his "quitting" was coming, obviously fully aware that the liar to be chief had not quit successfully (one knew by his choice of words), and flappy ears responded he would not be caught in the White House, he promised.
One realizes that stated response was, more than anything, an agreement, or a to be noted declarative command, and the press has of course, absolutely complied.
Yes, the brown nosed press knew exactly that they would make certain their new god's impossibly predictive word was never broken, and since the brown nosed left lib press has pretended obama never took a puff his entire life. History is already entirely rewritten, and the future, scott free, never caught smoking in the White House swear, is certain to be "forever true", as far as the public knows.
Yes, this is how it works.
Alice Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 3:58 PM
facetious. Even Elizabeth can't stand Edwards any more and has kicked him out. I wonder what Rielle thinks of him now. Andy Young states that he helped Edwards because he hated Bush/Cheney. Note to Young: Bush and Cheney were not running in 2008! The blame it on Bush - blame it on Fox News excuses have got to come to an end. We ended up with the ACORN organizer thanks to the cover ups of the press, and Edwards endorsement of Obama which took votes away from Hillary. Hillary must be laughing into her soup. She gets the last laugh.
Rowly Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 3:54 PM
Great satire!! Keep up the good work!!
svpallava Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 3:25 PM
Your question to Tyler is actually valid. I think he FAILED in his studies to be upgraded to moron (from idiot--using the archaic scale of mental deficiency).
jim#1 Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 3:11 PM

I just wish no one paid any attention to any sexual activity except non-consensual.

And that applies to most everything else I can think of too, if the people involved don't care, or are able to settle the problem, all the rest of you forget it.

Especially where a politician is involved. If you can tell me about a century where that didn't happen, maybe I will change my mind.

Sexual activity must only be of concern to the spouse, and the others involved.

You hear these awful things that a man has done, but never hear much about the lady involved, even if she had as much fun as the man.

Now this is posted by an expert with absolutely no experience except for my beautiful lady of 55 years, and then only after we married.

Of course, now that she is in a better place, I am waiting for someone who would like to be number 2. At this age I can't remember what that would involve.

ropati Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 2:52 PM

of Fox News, talk radio, the bloggers, and conservative websites. Without these sources, the public is denied "just the facts, ma'am."

It is no surprise to me that newspapers are rapidly becoming the dinosaurs of the 21st century. They are digging their own graves. Whatever they pay their reporters is too much.
Frank Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 1:51 PM
When a conservative does something scandalous, it's news, because such a person violating his professed standards is unusual.

When a liberal does something scandalous, it's NOT news, because it's not unusual, and such a person is just living according to his standards.

Seriously, though, my liberal hometown paper loves to splash any wrongdoing by a Christian / conservative all over the front page, but there's a LONG list of politically-incorrect events and information that they clearly pretend don't exist.
Mary Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 1:47 PM
"buries" anything doesn't want the public to know, especially about Democrats, but they'll shout from the rooftops any hint of scandal involving Republicans, and, if they are later forced to retract their story, they'll bury that, too.

People who rely solely on the MSM for their news are getting only a small fraction of the news about what is actually occurring, and then they're getting a very biased account.

What upsets me most about all of this is that if John Edwards had been elected as the Democratic nominee for President, chances are they still wouldn't have reported that story! (Can't harm the chances of "our" presidential nominee!)
Nora Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 12:05 PM
Please let me know where you do get your information.
Please tell us why you think FOX news is fake and nor real news.
I watch them all and like FOX best. It just seems to me that they are not afraid of saying it like it is. When I watch the other channels it seems like I am in high school watching a cheer leading squad. Or worse yet, it seems like I am back in college listening to a professor give me his narrow enlighting view on how it's everyone else's fault and government should do more. I never hear them tell us just "who" this government is and where all the money comes from. FOX screams it that the government is suppose to be us and that the money can and only comes from us.
I find it a shame that the government is more of a union where you pay your dues and keep your mouth shut, and the money is coming from China with strings attached (you betchya there's strings attached!), and even more stupid is when we get the money from China or print it up ourselves we lend it or give it by the billions to other countries!
Pul Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 11:37 AM
At about the same time the NYT had a front page article that suggested Senator McCain spent too much time with a pretty lobbyist. They spent considerable resources trying to derail his campaign and dig dirt.

Yet, they ignored Mr. Edwards. It is a clear case of bias. One of many throughout the MSM. The bias deniers are starting to look silly.

And should probably stop using Fox News as a preemptive argument ender, it's wearing thin.
Robin Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 11:33 AM
When the scandal broke, I remember specifically watching Andrea Mitchell on a round table discussion(not sure which show) say that "everyone knew" that this was happening. I couldn't believe that she said that, and why it had been not reported if "everone knew." The reason I think they didn't report it, was that Edwards was eating into Hillary's votes, therefore giving Obama a victory. They loved Obama and only tolerated Hillary. But I haven't heard Mitchell or anyone else make a comment like this since. Amazing.
Steve Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 11:18 AM
Edwards is just another garden variety left/lib -- thinks the rules are for everyone else but him. Good !@#$%^& riddance!
MJ Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 10:50 AM
The media ignored the John Edwards scandal because it would have imploded his campaign. Period! Remember, he was the VP candidate in 2004, so the media believed they needed to do SOMETHING to cover up his peccadilloes. It had nothing to do with the "close-mouthed" nature of the campaign staffers. Anyone traveling with that campaign KNEW that Edwards was boinking Hunter. All you had to do was see the two of them together to figure that out. I've seen the vids on You Tube (before the campaign yanked them) and they flirted so outrageously it was embarrassing. I guess this is all in keeping with the theme that the media EXPECTS conservative candidates to be happily married, honest people with impeccable private lives, and they EXPECT liberals to be lying, cheating, scumbags.
MJ Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 10:45 AM
I hate to tell you Tony, but even John Edwards has admitted that he's a lying, cheating scumbag. You don't have to carry his water anymore. Put a fork in him, he's DONE!!! The only remotely rational thing you wrote in your post is that John Edwards represents what the Democrat Party is all about. That is absolutely true! John Edwards has a pretty face that hides the fact that he is a lying cheating scumbag who is only looking out for himself and his selfish pleasures. Much like the Dem party puts a pretty facade on their Socialist policies and pretends they are only looking out for "the little people" while enriching themselves and making a naked grab for power. Must be why the Dems continue to elect lying cheating scumbags with pretty faces like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
binc Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 10:36 AM
that Edwards has buffed nails is enough for me. Never did trust men with buffed nails-ick.
Tony Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 10:36 AM
Everybody knew the National Enquirer was lying about John Edwards, a loving husband whose wife couldn't take care of his needs any more. You brainless TH posters think just because you believe in God and the Constitution that you're always right.

Instead you punish great community activist organizations like ACORN who were slurred by a pandering reporter and his slutty girlfriend. The greatest president since Linkin is what he is today because of his selfless work with that group.

You even think that idiot Ronald Regan brought about the economic turn-around in the 80's, when everyone knows it was the great and sexually potent Bill Clinton who balanced the budget.

John Edwards would have made a great president, because he represents what the Democratic party is all about. So there, nyaaah! (take out the garbage yourself, mom)
Stardust Girl Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 10:23 AM
In 1981, after Carol Burnett brought a defamation suit against the National Enquirer, they paid huge damages for saying she was drunk in a restaurant when in fact, she was not. Since then, the editorial staff has gone to great lengths to restore their reputation as a credible source of Investigative Journalism. And they have been. In fact, they have scooped many stories far in advance of the MSM. OJ Simpson, Monica Lewinsky, Bristol Palin's pregnancy and many others. Don't be so quick to bash The Enquirer. No matter how seemingly preposterous the story, they always end up right.
JamesB Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 10:06 AM
The New York Times reported on the affair John McCain was having with a lobbyist....oh wait, that was a lie, wasn't it?
Ray Wrote: Feb 09, 2010 9:52 AM
Duh! Isn't it obvious by now that the Lamestream Media is going to cover for anyone who is Far Left or Super Liberal? It's just part of their agenda also so there should be no surprise when they wax over a story like that of John Edwards. It's just part of the Liberal mindset. If you're Liberal the ends always justifies the means and character has nothing to do with it.

That's how we wound up with a Radical Far Left President with associations to people like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. That's why the ACORN story got no air time on Lamestream Media. That's why crooks like Chris Dodd and Charlie Rangel are kept below the radar.

So you think the Constitution means anything to Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank? Guess again!

It's going to take Americans like those involved in the Tea Party Movement to move the bar up. If we want better government, we're going to have to demand it and vote accordingly.
« Previous1234Next »