Double Standard at the New York Times

Left- Last February: This picture of Vicki Iseman was all over the mainstream news media.

Right- Now: Rielle Hunter's picture in the mainstream media


The recent incident at the Beverly Hilton Hotel involving the National Enquirer and John Edwards, a story that to date, has been studiously ignored by the mainstream media, brings to mind a story published by the New York Times last February about a
10-year-old rumored romance between John McCain and a telecommunications lobbyist named Vicki Iseman.

In the story, published February 21, 2008, the Times recounted how McCain staffers had become "concerned" about the Arizona senator's relationship with Ms Iseman in the late 1990s and "suspected" it "might be" romantic in nature. (McCain was running for the Republican presidential nomination at the time.) The sources were anonymous, though one McCain staffer, John Weaver, was identified as having met Ms Iseman and advising her to stay away from McCain. Yet no one, anonymous or otherwise, outright accused McCain and Iseman of having an affair, and no one could offer any solid evidence of one other than they were concerned about the appearance of impropriety-especially since Ms Iseman's firm had lobbied McCain.

In response to this story, McCain appeared with his wife, Cindy, to deny the relationship and denounce the Times for the story. In addition, Ms Iseman and her firm also denied the story as well as any improper lobbying involving the senator.

So was there really a romance? I have no idea, but contrast this story by the New York Times with the current "non-story" involving John Edwards, a story that the New York Times and virtually the entire mainstream news media thus far, refuse to report.

In the Edwards saga, we are not talking solely about anonymous sources. Sure, the Enquirer has sources who tipped them off about the alleged relationship between Edwards and Rielle Hunter and the fact that she was pregnant, allegedly by Edwards. (Edwards and Hunter denied the relationship last year when the Enquirer initially began reporting on it.) Certainly, there was a tipster who led them to the Beverly Hilton Hotel almost two weeks ago. At that point, however, the anonymous sources don't matter. Seven Enquirer reporters observed Edwards and Hunter at the hotel and they confronted him, at which point, Edwards fled like a thief in the night, eventually barricading himself in a men's room until a security guard escorted him out of the hotel. (Fox News has interviewed the guard, who corroborated the incident.)

During the past two weeks since the incident, Edwards has brushed off a handful of reporters at least three times who tried to ask him about the incident (in Houston, New Orleans and Washington). God only knows which news outlets those reporters work for.

It is also astounding how many otherwise educated and well informed people there are in this country who still have not heard the Edwards story. My own office at the University of California at Irvine, where I teach, is an example. Virtually none of my teaching colleagues had heard of it until I mentioned it to them. As Sean Hannity likes to say, "Little ol' me".

The question I raise is this: Given the story that the New York Times ran on McCain in February, why does the "Gray Lady" (New York Times) have no interest in running the Edwards story-which at this point has tons more documentation and corroboration than the McCain story did? Say what you will about the National Enquirer. You can argue that there is no concrete evidence that Edwards is the father of the baby girl, who was born in February, especially since a campaign staffer, Andrew Young came forward and claimed paternity (which the Enquirer claims is part of an elaborate cover-up). You can also argue that the Enquirer's latest report about $15,000 being paid monthly to Hunter is based on an anonymous source, and that is absolutely correct. Yet, what occurred at the Beverly Hilton cannot be denied, and eventually, Edwards will have to explain it.

Unless, of course, our mainstream news media, exemplified by the New York Times, continues to stonewall the story on Edwards' behalf until it just fades away, much like the great reputation the Times used to enjoy as the nation's signature newspaper. Of course, Edwards will have to forget his political ambitions. Should Barack Obama exercize that famous "judgement" of his and name Edwards as his running mate or attorney general (as was considered a possibility two weeks ago), the story will have to be addressed one way or the other.

But forget John Edwards. The real story here is the mainstream media-and especially the New York Times. It would do us all well to compare and contrast the Times' handling of two suspected scandals and ask why the disparate treatment.

That is, if you don't already know the answer.