Probably because there isn't any hard evidence to build a story on. Rags like the National Enquirer can base stories on hearsay and gossip, that's what they do. But legitimate news outlets have reputations to uphold (although I admit they don't always do their best at that). Didn't the Enquirer claim they had pictures? Where are those?
Not even the "fair and balanced" Fox News is touching this one, other than their little "confirmation" on their website a while back.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. Edwards isn't on anybody's short list possible VP candidates.
First, Edwards is (or was) on Obama's short list of vp candidates as well as Attorney General. (probably not now.)
Second, the only unknown source was whoever tipped them off that Edwards and Hunter would meet at the hotel, which they confirmed by their own personal observations.
Everything else in the story was the personal observations of the reporters (7) plus the corroboration of the security guard.
Let me relate it to my career in DEA. If an anonymous informant tips me off that there will be a dope deal at the Hilton Hotel-that means nothing evidence wise. If police surveillance observes the deal go down, that is solid evidence.
Because you don't like the Enquirer, which is understandable, you don't accept the story-even if it is obviously solid.
Pics? I understand they have them and they are coming. Do you really need pictures to convincce you he was there and confronted by the NE and reacted in a panic mode?
As someone who used to work in law enforcement, you should know that surveillance involves collection of actual evidence, not just supposed eyewitness accounts. There's often audio and visual evidence collected. So that is somewhat of a poor analogy, because we have no such evidence here. Like I said, just gossip and hearsay as of right now. And yes, I do need to see some actual evidence, like the pictures.
Speaking of which, where are they? In this day of digital photography and the Internet, the pictures should have easily come out within HOURS of the incident, not WEEKS. What would the Enquirer gain from withholding them? Makes me wonder if they even exist.
My equation was based on the premise that the reporters were the equivalent of police who corroborate the anonymous sources tip with their own observations. (I realize equating Enquirer reporters with cops is risky, but I think you get the point.)
Unless the 7 Enquirer reporters completely manufactured the story of what occurred at the hotel, this is not a story based on rumors and anonymous sources.
Editor David Perel has stated on the John and Ken Show, which I listened to that they did take pictures. I have a sneaking suspicion, they are holding them back until the point that Edwards and his camp make a categorical denial of the story. Just a guess. We probably should keep checking their website.
What I think you should be asking yourself is why this story is not being reported by the msm, at least they could ask Edwards about it.
The article you referred to is no longer up. My question is when was the article dated. If since last Tuesday, there is a reason Edwards name doesn't appear. Prior to Tuesday, he was mentioned as a candidate. Why did the Houston reporter ask him last week in Houston if the LA incident would hurt his chances for VP?
Also, don't forget, he was a leading candidate for AG in an Obama admin.
It was from the 26th. But this is all sort of moot now, since as you said he is no longer under consideration for either position. Isn't that what you wanted though? There's bad gossip about Edwards so the Obama camp doesn't want him. Seems like the right thing to do, and you seem to agree. So, why the fuss?
There is nothing that I wanted or didn't want. Who Barack Obama chooses as VP or AG is not a concern to me because I am not going to vote for Obama anyway. If the article appeared on the 26th, I would say Edwards' name disappeared because he is no longer under consideration due to the incident.
My question to you is this:
Are you questioning the veracity of the story or the newsworthiness of the story?
Rightfully or wrongfully, John Edwars remains a public figure-who denied the story of the relationship when he was running for president. Today, he is running around the country telling us how to live and trying to affect public policy-in this case regarding poverty. He can't have it both ways. I believe the story is absolutely newsworthy as it pertains to one who wants to affect our lives.
I also maintain that if this involved a conservative/Republican political figure, the msm would be all over this story. It is a clear double standard that reveals the bias of the media-something we should all be concerned about regardless of our political persuasion.
For the record I do believe it's newsworthy if true. But I'm in favor of taking things slow and waiting for some solid evidence (not gossip or hearsay) before covering the story. Perhaps the media are also showing some mercy towards Mrs. Edwards right now?
I want to remind you again that not even Fox News is covering this, so maybe they're not as great as you think?
To me its irrelevant whether the media has a "liberal" or "conservative" bias. What matters to me is that they are so intertwined with the powers that be, and control the spectrum of debate.
As I said before, unless you think the Enquirer has made up the story of last Monday night, it is not gossip or hearsay. Edwards was caught red-handed.
Of course, Mrs Edwards is deserving of sympathy, but that has never kept the media from going after a story.
I am not so sure I would say they are intertwined with "the powers that be." If that were true, they never would have done any stories against Bush or Cheney. I would argue that they msm is intertwined with the Democratic Party to the point they are an arm of the Democratic Party. Ofc nourse, you might argue (reasonably) that Fox and talk radio are arms of the Republican Party (though I don't really agree.) But if for the sake of argument that were true, they are the only two outlets that conservatives have on their side.
Probably because there isn't any hard evidence to build a story on. Rags like the National Enquirer can base stories on hearsay and gossip, that's what they do. But legitimate news outlets have reputations to uphold (although I admit they don't always do their best at that). Didn't the Enquirer claim they had pictures? Where are those?
ReplyDeleteNot even the "fair and balanced" Fox News is touching this one, other than their little "confirmation" on their website a while back.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. Edwards isn't on anybody's short list possible VP candidates.
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteWrong, Sir.
First, Edwards is (or was) on Obama's short list of vp candidates as well as Attorney General. (probably not now.)
Second, the only unknown source was whoever tipped them off that Edwards and Hunter would meet at the hotel, which they confirmed by their own personal observations.
Everything else in the story was the personal observations of the reporters (7) plus the corroboration of the security guard.
Let me relate it to my career in DEA. If an anonymous informant tips me off that there will be a dope deal at the Hilton Hotel-that means nothing evidence wise. If police surveillance observes the deal go down, that is solid evidence.
Because you don't like the Enquirer, which is understandable, you don't accept the story-even if it is obviously solid.
Pics? I understand they have them and they are coming. Do you really need pictures to convincce you he was there and confronted by the NE and reacted in a panic mode?
Gary,
ReplyDeleteI don't think you've been keeping up with the VP selection. Check out this recent WSJ article on the matter, in which Edwards is nowhere to be found:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121703366266486727.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
As someone who used to work in law enforcement, you should know that surveillance involves collection of actual evidence, not just supposed eyewitness accounts. There's often audio and visual evidence collected. So that is somewhat of a poor analogy, because we have no such evidence here. Like I said, just gossip and hearsay as of right now. And yes, I do need to see some actual evidence, like the pictures.
Speaking of which, where are they? In this day of digital photography and the Internet, the pictures should have easily come out within HOURS of the incident, not WEEKS. What would the Enquirer gain from withholding them? Makes me wonder if they even exist.
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteMy equation was based on the premise that the reporters were the equivalent of police who corroborate the anonymous sources tip with their own observations. (I realize equating Enquirer reporters with cops is risky, but I think you get the point.)
Unless the 7 Enquirer reporters completely manufactured the story of what occurred at the hotel, this is not a story based on rumors and anonymous sources.
Editor David Perel has stated on the John and Ken Show, which I listened to that they did take pictures. I have a sneaking suspicion, they are holding them back until the point that Edwards and his camp make a categorical denial of the story. Just a guess. We probably should keep checking their website.
What I think you should be asking yourself is why this story is not being reported by the msm, at least they could ask Edwards about it.
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteThe article you referred to is no longer up. My question is when was the article dated. If since last Tuesday, there is a reason Edwards name doesn't appear. Prior to Tuesday, he was mentioned as a candidate. Why did the Houston reporter ask him last week in Houston if the LA incident would hurt his chances for VP?
Also, don't forget, he was a leading candidate for AG in an Obama admin.
It was from the 26th. But this is all sort of moot now, since as you said he is no longer under consideration for either position. Isn't that what you wanted though? There's bad gossip about Edwards so the Obama camp doesn't want him. Seems like the right thing to do, and you seem to agree. So, why the fuss?
ReplyDeleteBryan,
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing that I wanted or didn't want. Who Barack Obama chooses as VP or AG is not a concern to me because I am not going to vote for Obama anyway. If the article appeared on the 26th, I would say Edwards' name disappeared because he is no longer under consideration due to the incident.
My question to you is this:
Are you questioning the veracity of the story or the newsworthiness of the story?
Rightfully or wrongfully, John Edwars remains a public figure-who denied the story of the relationship when he was running for president. Today, he is running around the country telling us how to live and trying to affect public policy-in this case regarding poverty. He can't have it both ways. I believe the story is absolutely newsworthy as it pertains to one who wants to affect our lives.
I also maintain that if this involved a conservative/Republican political figure, the msm would be all over this story. It is a clear double standard that reveals the bias of the media-something we should all be concerned about regardless of our political persuasion.
Gary,
ReplyDeleteFor the record I do believe it's newsworthy if true. But I'm in favor of taking things slow and waiting for some solid evidence (not gossip or hearsay) before covering the story. Perhaps the media are also showing some mercy towards Mrs. Edwards right now?
I want to remind you again that not even Fox News is covering this, so maybe they're not as great as you think?
To me its irrelevant whether the media has a "liberal" or "conservative" bias. What matters to me is that they are so intertwined with the powers that be, and control the spectrum of debate.
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, unless you think the Enquirer has made up the story of last Monday night, it is not gossip or hearsay. Edwards was caught red-handed.
Of course, Mrs Edwards is deserving of sympathy, but that has never kept the media from going after a story.
I am not so sure I would say they are intertwined with "the powers that be." If that were true, they never would have done any stories against Bush or Cheney. I would argue that they msm is intertwined with the Democratic Party to the point they are an arm of the Democratic Party. Ofc nourse, you might argue (reasonably) that Fox and talk radio are arms of the Republican Party (though I don't really agree.) But if for the sake of argument that were true, they are the only two outlets that conservatives have on their side.