Posted on 02/28/2010 9:01:06 AM PST by STARWISE
Over the past few weeks, the world has learned quite enough about John Edwards – from the lies he told in trying to cover up an adulterous affair to the compulsive vanity that left some people close to him questioning his judgment and even his grip on reality.
Democrats who seriously considered making Edwards the party’s 2008 presidential nominee could be forgiven for asking: Now you tell us?
The revelations about Edwards, contained in two best-selling books, have undermined one of the favorite conceits of political journalism, that the intensive scrutiny given candidates by reporters during a presidential campaign is an excellent filter to determine who is fit for the White House.
While the media “usually does well” in vetting candidates, said presidential historian Michael Beschloss, “Edwards is a good case” in which it didn’t.
And that failure is worrisome in a changed political world where politicians - be they Barack Obama or Sarah Palin - can burst upon the national stage and seemingly overnight become candidates for higher office.
The media, according to Beschloss, now has “a much bigger responsibility than it used to.” In the past, he said, the political establishment “would usually have known the candidate for a long time, and if there were big problems, they probably would have known about those, and tried to make sure those people wouldn’t be nominated.”
That did not happen with Edwards, even though as a Senator he had run for president once before, in 2004, ended up on the Democratic ticket as John Kerry’s running mate, and was a known quantity to many top Democrats.
In 2008, there were conversations among some Edwards staffers, according to “Game Change,” the new book by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, about the responsibility of coming forward with what they knew about Edwards, perhaps leaking to the New York Times or Washington Post, if it looked like he might win the nomination. But there is no evidence they ever did.
Two stories by the National Enquirer that ran before Iowa described Edwards’s affair with Rielle Hunter. But the mainstream media went to sources within the Edwards campaign to try to confirm the stories and got nowhere. No one in the campaign would confirm them.
Those staffers are the ones who should be held accountable, Marc Ambinder wrote in response to the question he posed on The Atlantic’s website: “Should Edwards Aides Be Shamed And Blamed?”
“It’s your responsibility to quit the campaign and not enable it,” he wrote. “If you enable it, you are responsible in some ways for the fallout. Your loyalty isn’t an excuse for that.”
The failure to follow up aggressively on the reporting by the National Enquirer, which has nominated itself for a Pulitzer Prize for its Edwards coverage, has served as fodder for conservatives and others convinced the media has a double standard when it comes to vetting Democrats and Republicans.
"I feel sorry for the liberals who were duped by Edwards,” said Cliff Kincaid editor of the right-leaning watchdog organization Accuracy in Media. “They were the real victims of the failure to vet Edwards.”
“Now we know that Edwards was a phony in more ways than one,” Kincaid added. “Our media, especially progressives in the media, were in love with Edwards because of his liberal views. But he wasn't in love with them. He was in love with someone else—and it turns out it wasn't his wife.”
Not everyone agrees that the media completely dropped the ball, including a former spokesman for Hillary Clinton, who might have had the most to gain from any Edwards disclosures.
“Edwards was pretty thoroughly vetted but there are limits to what the press can reasonably be expected to uncover, said Phil Singer, Clinton’s former deputy communications director, “and events that take place in the bedroom are probably at the top of that list.”
Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, said that there isn’t a “simple yes or no” answer when looking at whether Edwards was fully vetted. What news organizations can cover, he said, comes down to a question of resources.
“News organizations just don’t have the horsepower to go out when there’s fields of eight people in each party to do the level of vetting it would take to uncover that,” Lemann said of the Edwards affair.
Rest @ link
~~Joke of the day ... ;)
IF they're Republican..
YES
Sick joke PING!
I don’t think the Dems were “duped.” It was probably well known all along that this guy was an adulterer, fornicator and who knows what else. It’s ok to bash a Republican who is caught doing some misdeed. But for their own, the Dems turn a blind eye. Or they make excuses for them.
A FReeper said on another thread that we don’t have investigative journalism anymore, and that is so true. Part of it is due to budget cuts, but another part of it is that the mainstream media is so in bed with the liberal socialists, that it too will turn a blind eye to the sins of Democrats. Only when it becomes patently obvious that some misdeed is going down do they finally come out and do the tsk-tsk. Really, media doesn’t particularly care about the American public or about the future and well being of America in general. They pander to the socialists; that’s it.
If Katie the Kopmmie gets an award for a chopped and creatively editted hit piece interview with Sarah Palin, then the Enquirer MORE than deserves a Pulitzer for finally getting the poop out on a scoop that almost everyone BUT the MSM knew to be happening.
Yet they (the MSM) had no problems reporting an untrue story about John McCain, and his supported mistress. It’s amazing what a double standard that was.
Only the ones they don’t like.
I think it would be awesome if the Enquirer
gets the Nobel .. they have truly earned it.
....the same press dumpster diving at Palin’s house to find the dirt takes everything libs say at face value.
But it’s not the journalists fault?????
Republicans.
ROSE: I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is.
BROKAW: No, I don’t, either.
ROSE: I don’t know how he really sees where China is.
BROKAW: We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.
ROSE: I don’t really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?
BROKAW: Yeah, it’s an interesting question.
ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.
BROKAW: Two of them! I don’t know what books he’s read.
ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?
BROKAW: There’s a lot about him we don’t know.
The question needs to be asked of all those Iowegians who supported this fake in the Hawkeye Cauki.
They think they’re so smart...
Edwards, first & foremost, was in love with himself.
Michael Beschloss. Isn't this the guy who effusively told Imus on air that Zero's IQ was off the charts only to have to sheepishly reply to Imus when pressed that he did not know what Zero's IQ was?
Right !!
My mental note as well ... LOL ..
MSM rear guard action....
Forget the lack of press scrutiny. Obama wasn’t even scrutinized by his opponent in 2008. All McCain could say was what a great guy Obammie is and better not say nofin’ bad ‘bout ‘im.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.