Every dog has his day
It seems every clue I pass on to the Mainstream News Media is fruitless. They just can't find the missing story-even when it's right in front of their eyes.
So here goes one last try. If they can't get it this time, there is no hope. Anyway, here goes (This should be the $100 dollar question on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?").
Now MSM, read carefully. On the right hand column of the front page of this blog, scroll down until you get to the NEWS heading.
Directly under that, in big bold letters, is THE MISSING STORY- again in big bold letters. Got it?
Double click.
And behold the hidden treasure.
PS: For those readers who depend on the Mainstream Media for your news, feel free to click on THE MISSING STORY as well. It's free.
21 comments:
Free!? Well hell I'm there Gary, thanks. :)
Was this the first you knew of it, Bruce? What does that tell us about the msm?
You may be putting too many eggs in this basket though, Gary. Aren't all the sources that the Enquirer lists anonymous? And well, we're not exactly talking about a publication that's known for its accuracy. Is one possibility that they're not reporting on it because there just aren't enough confirmed facts to bear this out? Shoot, I read it last night, so I don't remember it very well, but isn't there already a guy who's claiming to be the father of this supposed love child?
Don't get me wrong - it may very well be true. You just might be jumping the gun here a little.
The National Enquirer?
Good Lord.
Lance, Bryan
I share everyone's caution about the Enquirer, but the only unnamed source is who tipped them off that Edwards would be there and why. They corroborated it with their own surveillance and by confronting Edwards, who tried to flee the scene. The reporters (at least one is named in the article) personnally observed what happened-includinmg Edwards and Hunter together. They also identified the room numbers and who was staying in them.
As for the person (Andrew Young) who has claimed the child, this is open to question since Ms Hunter still appears to be a friend of the family to this day (Mr and Mrs Young). The suspicion is at this point that Young was covering up for Edwards.
Fox News has interviewed the security guard who responded to the men's room and escorted Edwards out. He described it as a wild scene with Edwards, ashen and shaken.
Why would Edwards enter the hotel surrepticiously, run from the reporters, barricade himself in a men's room and be ashen and shaken?
Don't you think at this point, the msm has a responsibilty to look into this considering that Edwards previously denied the affair when he was running for president and is still considered a possible vp choice?
Remember the NY Times when they were running stories about a McCain affair not too long ago? Double standard, perhaps?
Say what you will about the Enquirer. Unless they made up this entire incident, it looks like Edwards has been caught in a Gary Hart moment.
Let us watch how this plays out. Sooner or later, and I think sooner, the msm will have to report it lest they be laughed out of business. It won't be long before we see Edwards standing before the cameras.
I am willing to bet a beer on it.
Gary, here is the thing: the National Enquirer is a rag, based on rumors and hearsay. So far that's all there's been to this story. I'm sure as more substantial, reliable evidence is uncovered (if it is) the mainstream media will pick up on the story, because they have a little more integrity than super market tabloids.
Also, I hope you realize that Fox News are a large part of the "MSM" you so often decry.
Bryan,
I am no admirer of the Enquirer, yet they have beaten more established outlets to major stories.
Today, John and Ken of KFI (you may not like them either) interviewed the editor of NE who relayed the story. There were 7 reporters who were present. It is my understanding that they took photos and they will be published next week.
John and Ken have also been given a leaked memor from an LA Times editor (Tony Pierce) instructing his bloggers at the Times not to discuss the story.
Hannity and Colmes reported on it this evening. On Wed a Houston reporter asked Edwards about it, and he ducked the question.
If you want to wait until you hear it on the CBS evening news from Katie Couric before you accept it, fine. It won't be long before everyone has to acknowledge it.
To me the bigger issue is why msm won't report what everyone in the media knows. It astounds me that so many educated and well-informed people who I work with are still unaware of this story.
As for Fox, perhaps they are part of msm. The fact is they do a better job than the older networks, and their ratings are a testiment to that fact.
As for Fox, perhaps they are part of msm. The fact is they do a better job than the older networks, and their ratings are a testiment to that fact.
Whoa. Okay, so better ratings equals better journalism? That's ridiculous. I mean, is that really how you want to judge journalistic integrity? Careful, you just might make my head explode.
Look, I'm with you that the mainstream media has some serious problems. I'll even concede that they're pretty much in love with Obama. This, however, does not make Fox News good by any means. I mean, come on, only on Fox News will you learn that cooking show hosts are terrorist sympathizers and "fist bumps" are the mark of Al Quaeda. What a total joke.
What about the study that showed that viewers of Fox News generally had greater misperceptions about the Iraq War than people who watched the other networks? (I can find you links, if you want them - no fair dismissing them with a hand wave and saying that they're biased.)
Oh, and just because I find it endlessly amusing, I will provide the link to the Pew Research Center's study, where it turns out that the most informed were regular watchers of Stewart and Colbert's shows. That doesn't seem to be a new thing though, as I was just reading King Lear and guess who got to speak the plain truth and get away with it? The King's jester.
Well Lance, it is all a matter of perception, opinion, political point of view-whatever you want to call it. In my view, Fox is head and shoulders above cbs, nbc, abc, cnn , msnbc etc. Yes, it is the only network where I can hear my conservatve side voiced. Do they lean right? Yes, but all the others lean way more to the left. And I do believe that FOX has more balance than the others.
By the way, I have decided to go ahead and post the Edwards story. National Enquirer or not, it is obvious that the story is legit. For the rest of the media to ignore it is a joke-and they are going to be embarrassed big time.
Fox is "more balanced." Did you just hear that? It was me, all the way up in the Bay Area groaning, "PUH-LEASE!"
What do you base that on? The fact that they keep telling you that they are? After all, it is their slogan, and it's not like you can just use a slogan and not live up to it. Oh, no, wait...it's a lot like that.
Come on, Gary. When we started attacking Iraq, they had a segment where they showed Baghdad getting bombed to music. Like it was a music video. Even Joseph Goebbels would have found that to be a bit crass.
Basically, it seems like it's more important to you that the news favors your biases than actually reports on things accurately.
I mean, how do you address that these studies show that Fox viewers turn out to be the least informed on the issues? And yet, they're the ones who feel as though they're the MOST informed. Isn't that a little bit disturbing? Don't you think there might be a connection with the popularity of Fox and the fact that most Americans thought that Iraq attacked us on 9/11? Isn't this more important than if they go after John Edwards supposed affair moreso than they did McCain's supposed one?
The media is irresponsible, and Fox is the worst of the offenders. But people love them because, you know, they have a lot of American flags displayed all the time, so that makes them good I suppose.
Lance,
Did I make your head explode?
I stand by what I have always said. Fox is the most balanced. Not perfectly balanced, but the most balanced.
Why is it that liberals are so emotional aboutthe one and only network that isn't solidly to the left?
Why is it so objectionable that Fox is patriotic and really supports our military and their mission?
Why is it that liberals are so emotional about the fact that talk radio is the only media outlet that is dominated by conservatives?
That by the way is not because of any conspiracy but becuase liberal talk shows like Air America, Phil Donahue or Mario Cuomo try and fail.
Yes, Fox leans to the right, no question, but they have plenty of liberal contributers, Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Alan Colmes. They always bring on dissenting guests and debate. When do you see a debate on Keith Olbermann?
Why is it that liberals are so emotional aboutthe one and only network that isn't solidly to the left?
Gary, I think that it has more to do with the fact that they're disingenuous. Again, how do you address the research that shows that people who get their news from Fox are the least informed? Shoot, I wouldn't mind the bias if they were at least informing people in an accurate way.
Why is it so objectionable that Fox is patriotic and really supports our military and their mission?
I'm sorry, but it takes more than waving an American flag to be a patriot. Things like that, and showing a city being bombed to music isn't patriotism to me. It's jingoism.
Why is it that liberals are so emotional about the fact that talk radio is the only media outlet that is dominated by conservatives?
You'd have to ask somebody who defines themselves as a "liberal," but again, my problem with talk radio is their disingenuousness. I've heard some conservative commentators whom I don't have a problem with. (Names escape me, but I want to say Dennis Prager.)
That by the way is not because of any conspiracy but becuase liberal talk shows like Air America, Phil Donahue or Mario Cuomo try and fail.
Hey Gary, I'll give it to guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, and even Savage that they know how to keep people coming back. They prey upon the fears and anxieties of their viewers and listeners in such a way that people feel like they're the only ones they can trust. Yeah, those other guys suck at it - but it has no bearing on who's being more truthful. I'm sorry, but I've spent too much time studying (and teaching) propaganda techniques to get sucked in by them.
That reminds me of a former student I had - ultra-conservative kid, and when I gave the list of propaganda techniques and their definitions, he said, completely independently and with NO prompting from me, "Hey, Mr. Johnson - you know those shows like Hannity and Colmes? That's all they do on them!"
Yes, Fox leans to the right, no question, but they have plenty of liberal contributers, Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Alan Colmes. They always bring on dissenting guests and debate. When do you see a debate on Keith Olbermann?
Why do you always try to get me to defend Keith Olbermann? I conceded that he sucked, didn't I? As for the other guys, I only know Alan Colmes, and that guy is an empty suit.
And again, your definition of "debate" his highly dubious. Like I said before, it's "debate" in the same way that a turd between two pieces of bread is technically a sandwich. Perhaps you're impressed by people yelling soundbites at one another, but I'm not.
The Court Jester tells the truth.
Lance,
What research are you talking about and who did the research-Harvard? LOL
Is talk radio really disingenuous or do you just disagree with them?
Dennis Prager is one of the most reasoned and articulate conservatives on the radio. Maybe you are thinking of someone else.
I don't think it is jingoistic to hope we win our wars and to let the public know there is positive news coming out of Iraq.
I don't think that conservative commentators are playing to any of my fears. They are giving my opinions a voice in the media.
Final point: At least at Fox there are a couple of pieces of bread along with the turd.
What research are you talking about and who did the research-Harvard? LOL
While it's a fallacy to accept everything that comes from Harvard just because it's a prestigious school, I find your automatic dismissal of anything they say to be the very thing that I mean when I talk about anti-intellectualism. Who needs all that fancy book-learnin', huh?
But no, it wasn't Harvard. One of them was from The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. The other was the Pew Resarch Center.
Is talk radio really disingenuous or do you just disagree with them?
When Sean Hannity said that Obama wanted to "bomb our allies" he was being disingenuous. That's the only thing I remember off the top of my head, but what bothered me when I did listen to them was the fact that they'd always set up a bunch of strawmen arguments and proceed to tear them down instead of actually analyzing the merits of the issue.
Dennis Prager is one of the most reasoned and articulate conservatives on the radio. Maybe you are thinking of someone else.
I googled him, and he's the one I was thinking of. I've only listened to him a few times, and I remember watching his TV show years and years ago.
I don't think it is jingoistic to hope we win our wars and to let the public know there is positive news coming out of Iraq.
Nice strawman, Gary. That's not what I'm talking about and you know it.
I don't think that conservative commentators are playing to any of my fears. They are giving my opinions a voice in the media.
As I wrote before in my own blog, I watched Hannity's America one time, and all I got from that was fear and paranoia with absolutely no sense of the nuances of the issue (which happened to be illegal immigration).
Final point: At least at Fox there are a couple of pieces of bread along with the turd.
At least you don't deny the turd.
I understand that the Pew is considered non-partisan, but why would someone want to measure the intellectual level of Fox viewers? Is there an agenda at work, perhaps? The Univ (of Maryland) I can understand.
The Hannity comment about Obama bombing our allies was in response to his controversial remark about going into Pakistan. Maybe hannity overplayed it, but it did raise eyebrows.
Yes, Hannity's America is a one-sided show, but at least he doesn't masquerade as an impartial commentator -like Dan Rather
As for the strawman comment, you will have to refresh my memory about what it is. I know you told me once, but I don't remember. I just think that Fox wants us to be successful in Iraq and I don't think that is being jingoistic.
The turd I was referring to on Fox was Alan Colmes. Actually, by all accounts, he is a good guy, but a naive liberal.
Is there an agenda at work, perhaps? The Univ (of Maryland) I can understand.
What difference does it make? If their findings or their methods can be called into question, that's one thing. But what does an agenda matter if the findings represent reality? Does reality have a liberal bias?
Maybe hannity overplayed it, but it did raise eyebrows.
Geez - talk about your spin! He completely took Obama's statements out of context and misrepresented what was said. A complex lie is a lie nonetheless.
Yes, Hannity's America is a one-sided show,
It's not the one-sided part that bothers me. It's the fear-mongering.
As for the strawman comment, you will have to refresh my memory about what it is.
It's when you replace the opposition's point with a different one that's easier to knock down. If you did a shot for every time Sean Hannity made one on his show, you'd be passed out before the first commercial break.
I just think that Fox wants us to be successful in Iraq and I don't think that is being jingoistic.
What about showing a city being bombed to music? Is that jingoistic?
And do you need to have multiple American flags up on the screen at once to show support? I mean, are you a terrorist sympathizer if you only have one or two?
The turd I was referring to on Fox was Alan Colmes. Actually, by all accounts, he is a good guy, but a naive liberal.
I'd like to see them get somebody like Chris Rock take Alan Colmes' place for just one episode. Shoot, I'd PAY to see that.
Do you think the studies show reality? Do you think that people who watch Fox News are less-educated than others-or more stupid? Wouldn't that be the same "arrogance" that I show when I "put down university intellectualism"?
(Is that an example of a straw man?)
Lance, instead of arguing over every detail, why don't we both admit that we look at this through different lens? You hate Fox and I hate CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC (and the whole world-LOL)
Actually, what I really hate is the total bias of the mainstream media that attempts to control the flow of news according to their own bias. We have a perfect example right in front of our very eyes. Ask yourself why it took little ol' me to bring this Edwards thing to your attention. Meanwhile, the NY Times tries to dig up an old story about an old McCain affair, while refusing to run his op-ed in response to Obama's op-ed. The LA Times will not report the Edwards story while instructing their bloogers not to comment nor will they report the San Francisco murder case involving a suspect who was protected from ICE.
It is all selective journalism. If the miscreant is a Republican, go get him. If it's a Democrat, the MSM has to be dragged into the story kicking and screaming.
Ask yourself why (according to another study) 80% of the media classify themselves as liberals and Democrats. Look at what goes on in our journalism schools, where students are taught that their duty is to uncover and report all the bad things in this world as opposed to reporting the news objectively.
Go back and read the Enquirer story and ask yourself if this is a story that needs more documentation, if this is a story that is based on hearsay, innuendo and unknown sources.
We may have ideological differences, but no serious person can argue that the mainstream news media is not biased.
Do you think the studies show reality? Do you think that people who watch Fox News are less-educated than others-or more stupid?
I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm just saying that there's evidence that shows that viewers of Fox are generally less informed. It doesn't mean that ALL people who watch Fox are uninformed, nor does it mean that informed people don't watch Fox. If there are studies that contradict that, I'd be interested in seeing them. From what I know, there aren't any. I mean, couldn't Fox do their own study? Perhaps they're afraid of the result?
(Is that an example of a straw man?)
Considering that I wasn't saying that Fox viewers were either of those things, yeah, it was. It's a bit harder to argue the actual point that I'm making. Perhaps you're taking too many cues from the master of the strawman himself, Sean Hannity.
You hate Fox and I hate CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC
I believe that I've made it clear that I think they all stink. I do think that Fox is probably the worst though.
Ask yourself why (according to another study) 80% of the media classify themselves as liberals and Democrats.
That can cut both ways, you know. Maybe they lean to the left because they have access to more information. (I'm not trying to prove a point; I'm just saying that you can use that piece of data in a number of ways.)
Look at what goes on in our journalism schools, where students are taught that their duty is to uncover and report all the bad things in this world as opposed to reporting the news objectively.
Where are you even getting this from? Granted, I wasn't a journalism major, but I did take a journalism class at SFSU, and that sure as heck isn't what I experienced. I hate to say it, but it sounds like another strawman. (In fact, I remember the teacher being openly critical of shows like 60 Minutes.)
We may have ideological differences, but no serious person can argue that the mainstream news media is not biased.
As I've told you before, I think that bias is the symptom of a much bigger problem. Why did I always hear about the "liberal bias" before I ever watched Fox or checked out those right wing radio shows? It's because the media was telling me that! It's all a big distraction from a much more sinister problem.
It's like the Titanic is sinking and you're complaining about the food that they're serving.
By the same token, Lance, I see well-educated people every day who are astoundingly not well - informed though they have their opinions. Guess where these folks get their news? The msm. Of course, that is not based on any research, just my own experience.
The only results Fox cares about is their ratings-which are head and shoulders above the other news networks.
As for the journalism schools, they are dominated by liberals (Columbia School of Journalism, for example). The comment about the purpose of journalism is anecdotal from people within the universities who have had contact with the schools over recent years. And those are not from conservative observers, it is just a critique that could come from right or left.
The Titanic??? How did you know I don't like fish?
The only results Fox cares about is their ratings
Finally! We agree on something!
: )
Good! Can we move on to another topic, now?
Post a Comment