LA Times Lifts Gag Order
* LA Times' Reports Denial Canard
* Writer Gives Readers a "Backdoor" to More Information?
GAG ORDER LIFTED
The embargo on John Edwards Scandal news at the LA Times Blogs has apparently been lifted. The embargo on supplying accurate information, however, may not be.
Don Fredrick's "Might a John Edwards Dem convention role be in jeopardy?" on the LA Times' website is Exhibit A.
UPDATES throughout the day, at end of story at DBKP.com.
John Edwards Scandal: LA Times Lifts Embargo on Edwards Scandal News
LA Times' readers, who might wonder how a prime VP candidate of only a few weeks ago might now be persona non grata in Denver, are brought up to speed by the story.
The story reports, "Edwards has continued to deny the affair allegations". However, Edwards has not denied the story since November 29, when the allegations were very general.
ALSO at DBKP:
Click on banner to access over 70 DBKP stories and videos on the John Edwards scandal.
Three weeks later, the National Enquirer published the photos of a pregnant Rielle Hunter and named her as Edwards' mistress. Since that time, Edwards has issued no denials. Prior to July 23, Edwards was never asked about the allegations by reporters.
Edwards statements on the matter since that time have ranged from, "tabloid trash," to "tabloids full of lies," to "sorry, I can't talk now".
It's not known if Fredricks, whose on-line bio states "served as an editor helping guide coverage of every presidential election since 1984," was allowed to report that, however. The following paragraph did make it into the post:
Chris Lehane, a key Al Gore aide during the 2000 presidential campaign, added that "an appearance at the convention [by Edwards] would only highlight the unresolved story."
Unresolved, for those who know about it, that is.
The article is informative on how the LA Times will explain its previous participation in the media blackout on Edwards' scandal news.
"For the most part, mainstream media outlets have not pursued the matter, in part because Edwards no longer is a presidential candidate nor does he hold a public office."
Which may leave readers wondering, "What has changed about Edwards' status to now allow discussion of the scandal on August 8?"
The LA Times' story references Alan Mutter's Reflections of a Newsosaur blog, "Where’s the Edwards love-child story?", which directly contradicts the LAT's non-coverage thesis above--though the LAT's article, obviously, doesn't quote the contradictory material. Mutter observes,
"Even though his presidential campaign is over, John Edwards has sought to be a major public figure for a decade. As such, he long since has forfeited any claim to privacy for his family or himself."
Might this be an instance of guerrilla journalism? By directing LAT readers to Mutter, who is freer to speak on the subject, a backdoor to information on the scandal that the LAT doesn't feel comfortable discussing is opened. More Mutter:
The rest of the mainstream media need to start writing and talking about the story, too. If not, their silence will be viewed as complicity in a suspected cover-up and their already fragile credibility will slip still further.
Has Don Fredrick learned the Rule of Information in the Internet age?
When one door shuts, another opens.
EDWARDS SCANDAL THREATENS OBAMA?
"John Edwards love child rumours threaten the Barack Obama presidential campaign" is the headline of a story in yesterday's The Daily Mail (U.K.).
"Barack Obama's supporters yesterday tried to distance him from a potentially damaging sex scandal."
Annette Witheridge, the Daily Mail's reporter on the story, has a firm grip on how the U.S. Mainstream Media operates.
Rumours that Mr Edwards, whose wife Elizabeth is battling breast cancer, fathered the child were ignored by the mainstream media until yesterday when the National Enquirer printed a grainy photograph allegedly showing Mr Edwards cradling the baby in a Los Angeles hotel room last month.
Witheridge avoids the MSM urban legend of Edwards' denying an affair with Rielle Hunter and fathering her daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter.
Until the photograph emerged Mr Edwards, who was John Kerry’s running mate in the 2004 presidential election, had managed to avoid questions about the affair.
DID RIELLE HUNTER TIP THE ENQUIRER?
The Daily Mail's article also observes, "Last night it was not clear how the Enquirer had obtained a photo that appeared to have been taken inside the room when the curtains were closed."
The Enquirer's latest edition reports a "Blow Up with Mistress" and recounts a telephone conversation in which Edwards, "hurled angry accusations at Rielle for at least 10 minutes, demanding that she keep her mouth shut and not trust anyone, according to the source."
Once again, the question becomes, "Was John Edwards's meeting at the Beverly Hilton with his mistress and daughter tipped to the National Enquirer by Rielle Hunter?"
Which might answer questions of why the pictures, which are described as "grainy" and "blurred" by some news outlets, were not clearer. Hard to take an unnoticed, clear picture of the man holding your baby, when they're both only a few feet away.
image: Daily Mail; National Enquirer