And even mentions his party affiliation. (!!!)
John Edwards (D)
ABC: Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candidate — In an ABC NEWS NIGHTLINE Interview, Edwards Reveals He Cheated, But Didn’t Father Child By RHONDA SCHWARTZ and BRIAN ROSS
When the National Enquirer first reported the alleged Edwards-Hunter affair last October 11, Edwards, his campaign staff and Hunter vociferously denounced the report.
“The story is false, it’s completely untrue, it’s ridiculous,” Edwards told reporters then.
He repeated his denials just two weeks ago.
Edwards today admitted the National Enquirer was correct when it reported he had visited Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.
UPDATE: Simon Owens at Bloggasm (great name) writes:
“[T]he LA Times banned its bloggers from writing about the Edwards affair story because they didn’t think the National Enquirer was a ‘reputable’ source. I actually got a phone interview with one of the LA Times’ top editors who said so. [...] I bet the National Enquirer is feeling vindicated right now.”
Yes, I bet they do.
At Bloggasm, Owens describes in further detail his communications with L.A. Times blog editor Tony Pierce.
Ever since the National Enquirer broke the story that former Senator John Edwards had visited a Beverly Hills hotel to meet with his alleged lover and love child, there has been no shortage of accusations that mainstream media outlets were ignoring the story. These criticisms were magnified after an email sent by Los Angeles Times blog editor Tony Pierce to his blogging staff leaked to the outside world.
“There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair,” Pierce wrote on July 24. “Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.”
Many took this to mean that the LA Times was actively trying to suppress the story from gaining any ground. They claimed that the email was indicative of the newspaper’s attempt to protect the former Democratic senator.
I spoke to Pierce for a few minutes on the phone today. He said the decision to send the email came after several senior editors at the Times met that day.
“The Opinion LA blog had already written about the rumors from the National Enquirer,” he explained. “We knew some of the other blogs wanted to write about it or were thinking about writing about it. And at that point we were like, ‘you know, we already have our metro desk working on a story and before we just kind of write a whole bunch of stuff about the National Enquirer article, why don’t we give our metro desk a chance to see what they can find.’ That’s when they said, ‘OK Tony, why don’t you write this letter to your bloggers.”
When I brought up the argument made by many that they were trying to bury the story, Pierce pointed out that one of the blogs had already written about it. The editors simply wanted to give the metro reporters a chance to dig into it and see if they could find any new information, he said, rather than just having the Times website create a bunch of noise.
Question: What other topics has Pierce found unworthy of the blog?
I’d like to take Pierce at his word, but I wonder if there would be any concern on his part about “creating a bunch of noise” had Edwards been a Republican. Of course, the media would never magnify a Republican’s errors/indiscretions/crimes, etc. Oh no.
The funniest part is that there are editors at the Los Angeles Times who consider their employer superior to the National Enquirer.
Stumble It!