Hmmm, wonder why this comes out on a Friday, in August, just as the Olympics start?
(You mean they timed this for when people would be paying less attention? Geddouttahere!)
So Edwards owns up, ABC gets the big get, and everyone else is left sort of standing around flatfooted. I??e had a number of interesting exchanges re media bias because of all this, and quite a few people telling me I?? just another lefty media stooge. But the head of a pin that USA Today/New York Times/Washington Post/Wall Street Journal/big broadcast networks/everyone else were dancing on was this: We didn?? get the story ourselves. We don?? have photos or reporting on it??nd while we might pick this up if we could source the story and photos to USA Today/New York Times/Washington Post/Wall Street Journal/the big broadcast networks, we ain?? gonna if it?? the National Enquirer.
Even though the Enquirer has been first, and right, on several similar stories.
I?? not saying this thinking behind this reasoning is particularly ennobling, but it is roughly what happens. Given all that, as well as these factors, none of nailed the story. Which they should, and will, hear lots about. (By the way: please carefully examine the full list of outlets listed above before banging out a letter about how this is all about a liberal media bias.)
I didn?? weigh in on this in my previous post, but to be clear: yes, Edwards' infidelity is absolutely a story worth pursuing and publishing. (And I say this as someone who did not find it credible that Edwards could be VP or otherwise serve in a Democratic president's cabinet.)
PS: Is he really going to say that he didn?? love her? And that his wife was in remission when he had the affair?
Like that matters somehow? Ugh.