Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

North Carolina Paper Covers the John Edwards Allegations -- Carefully

By Clint Hendler, Columbia Journalism Review. Posted August 7, 2008.


Love child allegations about Edwards remain so far unproven. One paper decides to cover the story properly.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

For the Charlotte Observer, it began in October, when the National Enquirer published an article suggesting that presidential candidate--and former North Carolina senator--John Edwards was having an affair.

The Enquirer's story purported to quote crush emails the woman-in-question, Rielle Hunter, had sent to friends. But otherwise the piece was thin. And the tabloid, while enjoying a quiet reputation for being libel-proof, doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the hearts of editors and readers.

Still, the McClatchy-owned Observer, the largest paper in Edwards's home state, sent Lisa Zagaroli, its Washington reporter, up to New York to make contacts and check around.

"I looked at it as a news tip," says Rick Thames, the Observer's editor. "I wasn't put off by it being in the National Enquirer. I was worried it if it was true."

Thames felt Zagaroli was making progress. But then Andrew Young, an Edwards campaign aide, stepped forward to claim that he, not his boss, had impregnated Hunter. In Thames eyes, "the story cooled."

But on July 22nd, the National Enquirer published a luridly written tale asserting that Edwards had joined Hunter and her now some-months-old baby behind closed doors in the Beverly Hills Hilton. After said meeting, the Enquirer reporters wrote that Edwards led them on a Keystone Kops style chase through the stairways, basements, and bathrooms of the hotel.

That ratcheted things up in North Carolina. On July 24, Jim Morrill, a veteran political reporter at the paper, posted an item on his blog linking the Enquirer's account. Morrill called the Hilton to confirm, as best he could, the substance of the story. But they weren't talking. Neither were his Edwards contacts.

So the paper asked some high profile political types how the rumor might affect Edwards's chances of being named as Obama's vice presidential nominee. The verdict was clear -- even in the absence of non-Enquirer proof, this would be damaging, especially if Edwards wouldn't step forward to deny it.

Even though it was a mere blog post, and even though the framing did not presume the truth of the Enquirer's account -- something Morrill says the paper was keen to avoid--the item was noteworthy as one of the first mentions from the traditional press of the scandal-in-waiting. Meanwhile, the story raged online. Conservative bloggers accused the "MSM" of covering for Edwards.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: john edwards, north carolina, national enquirer, observer

Clint Hendler is a staff writer at CJR.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Get out of the bedroom! It's the war, the economy.
Posted by: www.suekatz.com on Aug 7, 2008 8:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found this piece very interesting, not the least the contrast between the online and print publishing processes. I'd just like to offer a friendly addition - aimed not at this article but at the media deflection of serious political talk.

There's a bitter recession going on, there's a murderous war or two happening, our rights have been viciously eroded. Should we really care who is sleeping around? Let's talk about policy, integrity, justice, not nose around peoples' sheets in a judgmental way.

It happens that I write about sex, particularly the great sex that people over 50 are having. But I don't care what Edwards or any other politician is doing unless they're being a hypocrite about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I care Posted by: deepseas
» RE: I care Posted by: thealltheone
» RE: Please explain to me... Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Please explain to me... Posted by: Bibsisis
» RE: Please explain to me... Posted by: Quannah
Sex and the Suffragettes
Posted by: Virginia Harris on Aug 8, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you know that two presidential mistresses played into women winning the vote?

Most people are quite a bit in the dark about the suffragettes.

Now finding out the sexy, shocking truth of HOW the suffragettes won the vote is as easy as opening your e-mail.

"The Privilege of Voting" is a new historical e-mail series that goes behind the scenes in the lives of eight well-known women from 1912 to 1920 to reveal the exciting and surprising twists and turns that played into women finally winning the vote in England and America.

The women depicted include two of the most beautiful and outspoken suffragettes -- Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt, and two stunning presidential mistresses.

There are weddings and funerals, babies in peril, damsels in distress, war, peace, prohibition, broken hearts and lots of hot affairs on the rocky road to the ballot box.

The best part is it's ALL true!
Presented via e-mail in a unique, sequential, interwoven short-story format called Coffeebreak Readers that makes discovering the delightful heroines of women's suffrage history fast and fun!

Each action-packed e-mail episode takes about 10 minutes to read, so they are perfect to enjoy on coffeebreaks, or anytime.
You can subscribe to receive free twice-weekly e-mails at:

http://www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/tpovpage.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why no interest in Republican crimes?
Posted by: luzmejor on Aug 8, 2008 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are Sooo many of them and most involve grand theft! Would men so keen on war ever be distant from charges of cold-blooded murder as well?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]