If We Say It Doesn’t Exist, It Doesn’t Exist ! : Lone Star Times

If We Say It Doesn’t Exist, It Doesn’t Exist !

by texpat · 07/31/2008 12:42 pm

Mickey Kaus over at Slate.com has been asking if the John Edwards scandal will be the first full-fledged candidate story to be covered completely on the internet as the MSM ignores it:

Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger writes:

As a member in good standing of the mainstream media, I generally tend to be skeptical of those in the blogosphere who accuse us of liberal bias.

But they sure seem to have a point with this John Edwards story.

and continues with this admission:

But this story has been ceded to the internet, where Slate’s Mickey Kaus asks, “Will this be the first presidential-contender-level scandal to occur completely in the undernews, without ever being reported in the cautious, respectable MSM?”

The North Carolina News & Observer has covered the Edwards scandal as has the San Jose Mercury-News. Curiously, we see nothing from the New York Times or Washington Post or any network television news division. Draw your own conclusions about the continuing viability of such institutions.

Filed Under Front Page ·

Comments

28 Responses to “If We Say It Doesn’t Exist, It Doesn’t Exist !”

slash on July 31st, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Well . . . because it’s a non-issue. Now, if he’s tapped for the VP position with Obama, THEN it’ll become a story.

I mean, come on. Exactly what DO you expect from a ambulance chaser/politician? At least he was with a woman, hehehe!
Simple Simon on July 31st, 2008 at 1:16 pm

What is the point?

He is not holding office.

He didn’t get enough votes in the primaries to qualify for asterisk status.

It is not likely that he will be appointed for anything.

How in blue blazes does this scandal impact gas prices as the pump, the falling value of the dollar, or the cost of doughnuts?

Your links do not work.

Simple
wfish on July 31st, 2008 at 1:29 pm

May not be an “issue”, so to speak, but a major Dim caught in a compromising situation and being ignored by the MSM seems about right. Please, don’t anyone tell his wife! Nobody else seems to care.
wagonburner on July 31st, 2008 at 1:35 pm

The mods are gonna have to switch from “help a Sarge” mode to “help proto-Yankee former Texan” mode…

#1 slash
She’s not just any woman, she’s the Duchess of Cornwall; this has international implications. They even have a “love colt”.

#2 simple
He’s the one that wants to stay in the debate as a national figure and many have pointed to him as a potential Cabinet member or other functionary in a potential TEO admin.
american woman on July 31st, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Replace the name John Edwards, with Fred Thompson and how would the ” cautious”, ” respectful” MSM be?
a crazy canuk on July 31st, 2008 at 2:08 pm

#4.1 Wrong bit of royalty

http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/07/the-john-edward.html

They believed he was there to pay a visit to the child he had fathered out of wedlock and the baby’s mother, an ex-campaign staffer named Rielle Hunter.

Elizabeth Edwards is the real reason this story hasn’t gained traction until now. I think that out of respect for EE, and a desire not to compound her grim cancer scenario with further emotional pain probably caused editors to hold back reporting the story until something else came along.
phil on July 31st, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Why would the Goebbels Stream Media want to cover this story? They don’t want to cover anything that would put their chosen party in a negative light.

Besides, they are so blinded by the light of their Obamessiah, they probably can’t see straight anyway.

Most of the so called journalists of today have all graduated summa cum laude from the Joseph Goebbels School of Journalism.

The only stories they really know how to cover are missing females and car chases in California.
slash on July 31st, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Yeah, ok . . . there is more to this.

But really, what kind of behavior do you expect of a lawyer cum Dim-o-cra-tic ex-Presidential canidate whose wife has cancer?

I’m surprised they didn’t catch him with a sheep.

Oh, ouch. Maybe they did.
wagonburner on July 31st, 2008 at 2:23 pm

#6 canuk
I always get Camilla, Rielle, and Seabiscuit mixed up. They look like they could all be sisters.
a crazy canuk on July 31st, 2008 at 3:00 pm

#9: You can tell them apart because Seabiscuit is a horse and the others are…. oh never mind.
wagonburner on July 31st, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Oh yeah, Seabiscuit is the brown one!
Darren10 on July 31st, 2008 at 3:44 pm

the Enquirer, acting on a tip, staked out a hotel where Hunter and a male friend had rented adjacent rooms. Sure enough, Edwards showed up at 9:45 p.m. and took an elevator up, according to the Enquirer reporters. At 2:40 a.m. he took an elevator down — all the way to the basement.

For some reason I got Aerosmith’s Love In An Elevator in my head.
Darren10 on July 31st, 2008 at 3:46 pm

#8;

I’m surprised they didn’t catch him with a sheep.

Oh, ouch. Maybe they did.

Makes me wonder what kind of “bahhhing” the sheep made? In fact, it could have been in the restroom he locked himself in.
Darren10 on July 31st, 2008 at 3:51 pm

I’m at my wife’s cousin’s house and his computer uses Firefiox, not Explorer. Two of texpat’s links: North Carolina News & Observer and San Jose Mercury-News are not connecting. Any one else have this experience?
wagonburner on July 31st, 2008 at 4:01 pm

#14 darren
When he pasted the link in, there were two “http://”es. Go to the front of the address that doesn’t work and delete one of them.
Darren10 on July 31st, 2008 at 4:04 pm

#15;

Thanks.
FourAlarm on July 31st, 2008 at 4:30 pm

They stake out this gum ball only bringing with them a Big Chief Tablet & a #2 pencil? Sounds like an interesting story but I question why there’s been no audio / video / photographs of this encounter. Particularly when everything makes it to the net in nanoseconds.
Cajun Maverick on July 31st, 2008 at 4:37 pm

If a man is in the woods, and says something, but then a tree falls on that man, is he still wrong?

Eventually, it’s going to get too big of a story for the MSM to ignore. Someone will pick it up.
Ken Kelley on July 31st, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Excuse me?! “cautious, respectable MSM” !!!
Isn’t that patently just a bit arrogant, in and of itself?
– Ken
Adee on July 31st, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Umm, Seabiscuit has been dead for quite a few years, so you’re down to two possibilities. Besides, what have you got against that fine deceased stallion anyway?
headshaker on July 31st, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Edwards was never a contender; hence, who cares?
Adee on July 31st, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Fox News Channel is still reporting on it.
texpat on July 31st, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Sorry about the link problem. The new version of Word Press we upgraded to has been automatically clearing the extra http:// when I pasted up the embedded link url. For some reason today, it did not. Somebody fixed it and I thank them.
texpat on July 31st, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Simple & headshaker

The real or imagined importance of John Edwards is not the point of my post at all. Frankly, I couldn’t care less if he is a transvestite back-up singer in a reggae band. The salient point is about the diminishing relevance of the mainstream media.
headshaker on July 31st, 2008 at 10:50 pm

texpat

Yes, your point is understood, and I concur.
marksolot on July 31st, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Which of the two Americas does the child belong to?
Cheers
Darren10 on August 1st, 2008 at 3:19 am

My number one curiosity is that after Edwards knocked up his babe while his wife stayed home dying of cancer, thus bringing yet another fatherless child into the world, did Edwards tele”pathetically” communicate with that child? You know, to make sure doctors weren’t ignoring its needs and making him or her disabled for life? What a talented, caring father he must be.

Gotta cash in baby!!!
wagonburner on August 1st, 2008 at 8:29 am

#26 marksalot
You mean like the good hair one or the ugly one?