Thursday, January 21, 2010


Thursday, John Edwards belatedly admitted paternity of his mistress's child. Edwards had sought the 2008 Democratic nomination for President while carrying on an affair with Rielle Hunter .

To me, the most interesting part of this story was the extreme reluctance of many mainstream media organizations to cover it. It is a reminder of how narrow the range of "respectable" opinion can be and how cowardly the news media can be about covering any story that might offend the establishment.


  1. I can't imagine what this “establishment” is that neither liberal nor conservative mainstream media wanted to offend it by “covering” the Edwards affair. Perhaps you could explain.

    What is meant by “covering” a story? Do you mean doing investigative reporting in order to learn more details about the Edwards affair so that they could be reported?

    If this is what you would have liked the media to do, there are other reasons than cowardice for their not doing it. In reality few media now can afford to do investigative reporting. Newspapers are having a difficult time surviving financially. For example our newspaper on 1/23/2010 reported that the holding company for the Bay Area News Group, which includes our paper and ten other newspapers in six counties with a circulation of 653,385, had a debt of $930 million and had filed for Chapter 11 protection. The article went on the say, “The filing is one of more than a dozen in the newspaper industry since late 2008.”

    If a newspaper in my area had limited funds available for investigative reporting, spying on a politician's extra-marital affairs would be low on my priority list. Investigating the misuse of funds, both in spending and accepting, would be high on my priority list.

  2. The mainstream media somehow collectively decided (by a process that I don't really understand) at an early stage that the Edwards affair was not a story and resisted covering it. Lack of funds is a feeble excuse as this is the sort of story that attracts readers and viewers and thus is profitable.

  3. In a similar vein, The Rocky Mountain News & Denver Post both refused to cover a story in Colorado of Roy Romer's affair while Romer was seeking re-election for governor. One small paper did cover the story, but nobody paid much attention, so Romer was elected. Years later he was photographed 'in flagrante dilecto'(actually, snuggling with the mistress in a car.) I wonder if Romer paid to supress the story during the campaign since the big newspapers knew about the affair and didn't do anything. Edwards evidently also paid around a million dollars for the same silence. I think many voters would like to know what their candidate is up to before they choose to vote for him.