John Edwards Love Child Scandal: The "Interview" That Never Happened

Disappeared!

Interview with Enquirer Editor-in-Chief David
Perel about the scandal that was up yesterday has disappeared!

Did a 'interview' actually take place?
Our theory about what happened to the mysterious "interview".

(Disappeared! We couldn't resist the National Enquirer-style headline.)

One more curious item in the John Edwards Love Child Scandal:

Yesterday a story appeared on AOL News which detailed an "interview with National Enquirer Editor-in-Chief, David Perel". We read the short piece and decided to comment on the "interview". But first, it was decided to grab a sandwich first.

When we returned, the "interview" had disappeared!

We continuously checked it throughout last evening, but the "interview" never re-appeared on the AOL News site. Memeorandum still had it referenced. Okay, maybe it was a glitch.

This morning, same thing.

The "interview" was still missing. Along side, other referenced stories containing the interview were also gone. Such as this one at Blogging Stocks: National Enquirer Editor Defends Edwards Love Child Story

Where was the mysterious interview?

Now THIS was a story for the National Enquirer!

And that is exactly what we suspect happened to the "interview", which was still up on Memeorandum a few minutes ago.

Here's DBKP's theory on the missing "interview".

There was no interview. Never was.

We're theorizing that the person who reported the 'interview' at AOL News was anticipating a media coup: an interview with the brains behind the hot scandal of the moment, the Enquirer's Perel.

He most likely did what we did yesterday. Contact the National Enquirer and talk to someone about the scandal. He also probably talked to the same person we talked to yesterday, the aforementioned Perel.

DBKP was hunting information on past scandals that the MSM had ignored and the Enquirer had broken. We had most of them, but didn't want to miss any. So we called the NE.

An affable chap, Perel at first was hesitant, but then got a copy of the tabloid, due for sale today and read us what is in the sidebar of the magazine's latest story on Edwards. Kinda like the Enquirer's Greatest Hits.

DBKP didn't feel like we should steal the Enquirer's thunder and rush out with the information: after all, the Enquirer had spent money and resources chasing down a story the other media had shown little interest in.

The Enquirer invested a lot in the story. It rightfully would want people to read about it in the National Enquirer or its website.

Not in AOL News.

Perel told us everything in the AOL story, plus a little more.

In fact, it was remarked here that the AOL story could have almost have been a transcript from our notes.

But we were more interested in actually chatting with Perel, the man behind this story, not scooping the publication in a faux 'interview'.

Not that we're paragons of human virtue--far from it. But, we're not without appreciating someone else's hard work, either.

So here's our theory: The guy at AOL News (his name escapes us and his interview isn't visible) put up the "interview" and sat back to expect the resulting traffic to satisfy advertisers.

National Enquirer, upon learning of it, consulted its lawyers and notified AOL News that no "Interview" had occurred, so the story came down. It remains down.

We couldn't imagine that Perel would talk freely on the eve of his paper recouping some of their investment in the John Edwards Love Child Scandal story. It's been reported that up to seven people were involved in gathering information in North Carolina.

Oh wait. That may have been one of the facts contained in the "interview".

This is only a theory, mind you. We have no proof and we figure all parties concerned are probably busy right now: the Enquirer with its latest release of John Edwards Love Child news; AOL News with cleaning up around the office.

That's why no attempt was made to contact either this morning.

We'll get around to it next week, when both are probably a bit freer.

We'll be happy to listen to any other theories, or better yet, news of what actually happened.

In the meantime, we're going to pass along a little advice we've learned over the years.

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

UPDATE: December 22, 2007 - Okay, Okay. So our theory was wrong! In the course of checking something out today, we confirmed that there was an interview. The disappearance of it is still a mystery to everyone we talked to today. As is the other location the interview disappeared from during the same time frame.

So, it was a glitch. We did say it could have been a glitch. So, give us partial credit. If our theory offended anyone, we extend our deepest apologies.
Just so you'll know and we keep the record straight.

by Mondoreb
[image:nationalenquirer]