Of Space Aliens, John Edwards' Love Child and Journalistic integrity at the National Enquirer

Posted by Clif, Sadly, No! at 6:41 AM on July 31, 2008.

Betsy Newmark, charter high school quiz coach and government teacher, as well as a blogger and 24/7 Republican talking-point regurgitator, has put on her sleuth cap and tried to plumb the mystery as to why most newspapers are staying away from the National Enquirer story alleging that the scandal sheet caught John Edwards in a secret rendezvous with his “mistress” and “love child.” Of course, you don’t have to be much of a sleuth yourself to figure out why she thinks that’s the case. (Hint: liberals at work). The real mystery is why someone this dim-witted is allowed to teach impressionable children.



So let’s watch some of Betsy’s sleuthing in action:

I think there are several reasons playing into the MSM disinclination to report this story. I think part of it is just a disinclination to report what Edwards terms as "tabloid trash." Even though The National Enquirer has a decent background on scandal stories, most MSM journalists consider themselves above re-reporting what [sic] a story that The National Enquirer owns.

Now you know why Betsy isn’t teaching English at her school. You can also find out why she’s not teaching journalism there either if you’ll mosey over with me to the National Enquirer’s website to see that “decent background” and impeccable journalistic integrity at work

There we have, cheek to jowl, as it were, little green men on the moon and John Edwards’s love child.

If there were a police report or some other documentary evidence then they might start reporting what has been going on.

Ya think? Is anyone (other than Betsy) really surprised that the word of several reporters for a paper that specializes in reporting government cover-ups of little green space men might not, in and of itself, be enough to run a story accusing someone of adultery, particularly without any objective documentation?

This, of course, does bring us to the photo question. Supposedly a swarm of National Enquirer reporters and photographers staked out Edwards at a hotel and they couldn’t manage to come up with a single frigging photo of Edwards. That seems a little fishy since every time I do something embarrassing several of my friends, none of whom is a professional photojournalist, have snapped a picture of the deed and emailed it to me (and everyone else I know) before my hangover has even worn off.

This is such a hole — no, such a crater — in the story that even Betsy seems perplexed about it. But never one to let such a tiny obstacle interfere with her efforts to spread calumny about a Democrat, she’s got an answer:

We'll see what happens when The National Enquirer releases the pictures that their Editor-in-Chief claims that they have.

Oh, Betsy, you’ve been naughty girl haven’t you? You were hoping we wouldn’t click that link, weren’t you? The Editor-in-Chief does not say that he has photos. The blogger interviewing the Editor-in-Chief says that there was a photographer there. Quite a difference. Indeed, if the National Enquirer, which has been humping this story harder than a terrier on a bitch in heat, had such photos, do you think they would keep them locked in their vaults? If you believe that, then I have pictures of Lindsey Graham, dressed in diapers and wearing a dog collar, giving me a blow job.

Tagged as: edwards, wing-nuts, national enquirer

Clif is a blogger for Sadly No!