Posted on 07/24/2008 4:47:01 AM PDT by abb
If you want an efficient, capsule summary of why you haven't read anything in newspapers or seen anything on major network news about how John Edwards ran from National Enquirer reporters in a hotel parking garage, about how he hid in a bathroom for 15 minutes, and about how he was holed up overnight with his alleged mistress and love child — an awesome, amazing story — parse these three revealing sentences from Washington Post "gossip" columnist Roxanne Roberts, in response to one of many persistent questions about the scandal in an online chat yesterday:
The Enquirer is not going to sell papers with nuance or sensitivity. I need more reporting from a credible source before I'm prepared to pass judgment. I'm not sure Edwards is a real candidate for the VP job, but if so will have to address this one way or another.
It's important to keep in mind, when reading this odd answer, that traditional news media used to have something of a lock on the dissemination of information, and allowed themselves to be convinced that they had a bizarre duty to filter even accurate information of interest to their audiences, and to do so in the service of reinforcing various social institutions and norms, even though their jobs, their Constitutionally-protected jobs, were to do just the opposite, to disseminate information and challenge long-cherished moral codes.
This self-shackling, this corruption of a trade, has become fundamental to American news media, and in the quote above we see Roberts concisely showcasing her own deep-seated instincts.
First, there's a dig at the Enquirer, the implication that the publication threw aside the nuanced truth to sell newspapers. This sort of reflexive swipe itself lacks nuance, and ignores history. In 1994, the Times declared that, on the OJ Simpson story, the Enquirer "stands heads and shoulders above [any other publication] for aggressiveness and accuracy." Slate's Jack Shafer in 2004 offered support for the tabloid's standards, if not its presentation, in "I Believe The National Enquirer/Why Don't You?," noting, "if you correct for stylistic overkill, you find a publication that is every bit as accurate as mainstream media."
Granted, the supermarket tabloid has stumbled, including with a 2006 libel case involving Kate Hudson, which it lost, and a retracted story involving false allegations that Cameron Diaz was cheating. But so have plenty of other publications, many with fewer than the Enquirer's 1 million readers.
The there's Roberts' line about the Enquirer lacking "sensitivity." With five reporters scrambling to ask Edwards about his alleged affair, the Enquirer was certainly showing sensitivity to the truth in all its shades. Or maybe she's saying the tabloid should be sensitive to Edwards' feelings by ignoring the story, as the Washington Post and Times and others have done, as though the truth can be kept bottled up at whim, and as if it's a newspaper's role to help perpetuate a lie, to keep Elizabeth Edwards in the dark until — what? — until she passes away?
And what's with the notion that the Washington Post needs to "pass judgement" before it reports the story? Here we see most clearly how news decisions can be poisoned by social pressure. Ostensibly, the Post, like other papers, at least tries to remain objective in its news columns. Passing judgement is the last thing a reporter is encouraged to do. But when a story actually becomes interesting, say by breaking a taboo on talking about sexual infidelity, or by breaking a taboo on criticizing the government during wartime (to pick an entirely random example!), suddenly a moral justification is needed in order to publish. Because, you see, newspapers like the Times and Post still control what information we, the isolated, childlike, reading public, are exposed to! This is a very contemporary, factually accurate and democratic view of the world.
Those who do buy into the bankrupt notion that the news media are morally freighted info-arbiters can still find reason to support coverage of the Edwards scandal. As Slate's Jack Shafer argues in "Why The Press Is Ignoring The Edwards 'Love Child' Story," Edwards' marriage is fair game in the tortured calculus of media relevance because Edwards deployed his wife aggressively in the service of his campaign. In fact, covering the scandal is a moral imperative, since Republicans were quickly hit with news stories during similar scandals of the recent past (Larry Craig is cited). See how slippery things get when news editors start trying to cast moral judgements on the news?
Finally, Roberts argues there is no reason to cover the "love child" scandal unless Edwards is a viable VP candidate, because again you need an excuse to write interesting stories. Again, Slate provides a rebuttal, this time from Mickey Kaus, who points out that Edwards was in fact on the shortlist for Attorney General under would-be president Barack Obama. It is supremely arrogant for news editors to assume they have the knowledge to definitively rule out the relevance of a story that is as interesting as the Edwards affair.
At least partly for the reasons outlined by Roberts, a large number of news organizations have elected to ignore the Edwards story as of this moment. Kaus compiled a list that includes not only the Times and Washington Post but also the newsweeklies, network newscasts and even the Huffington Post ("and it's their story!").
That's actually fine — totally their prerogative. Perhaps some are even even readying Edwards stories at this moment, and just wanted to give him time to issue an official statement (beyond this non-denial on Drudge: "I don't talk about these tabloids. Tabloid trash is full of lies.") and to do more of their own reporting. Wonderful.
But to the extent the silence is due to publishers, like Roberts, intent on dictating news interest to their readers, so much so that they will ignore certain hot topics, these news organizations are mortgaging their future, and in many cases ceding valuable ground to competitors already eating deep into their profit margins.
On the bright side, for the rest of us, this process does have a way of weeding out news outlets that are all-too-eager to suppress news stories rather than publish them.
ping
ping
ping.
I am going to enjoy watching them savage each other into oblivion -
Sniping seems to be a precursor to the death rattle and final essay of adieu.
It’s to the point that the NE is more credible than the MSM. You don’t see their profits sliding 82% in a Q...dumbsh!t’s!
Makes you wonder what the heck their shareholders are thinking.
The there's Roberts' line about the Enquirer lacking "sensitivity." With five reporters scrambling to ask Edwards about his alleged affair, the Enquirer was certainly showing sensitivity to the truth in all its shades. Or maybe she's saying the tabloid should be sensitive to Edwards' feelings by ignoring the story, as the Washington Post and Times and others have done, as though the truth can be kept bottled up at whim, and as if it's a newspaper's role to help perpetuate a lie, to keep Elizabeth Edwards in the dark until — what? — until she passes away?
I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere that the other news outlets might be afraid of backlash. They are already on the ropes over inaccuracies and bias, maybe they don’t want to do tabloid-style stories (such as the recent McCain story that backfired) or stories that would make them appear extremely insensitive to a woman stricken with cancer.
What hurts the media reputation, hurts the sales.
Any rational investor that didn't see the meltdown coming in newspaper companies a year ago is too stupid to be fooling with the stock market. They should stick to CDs.
Well, it is NOT like Edwards was TAPPING HIS FOOT when he was hiding in the bathroom, right?
I have not watched Fox News since they cut Duncan Hunter from the debates. Surprise, Edwards isn’t in their news either. So much for “We Decide”.
It's important to keep in mind, when reading this odd answer, that traditional news media used to have something of a lock on the dissemination of information, and allowed themselves to be convinced that they had a bizarre duty to filter even accurate information of interest to their audiences, and to do so in the service of reinforcing various social institutions and norms, even though their jobs, their Constitutionally-protected jobs, were to do just the opposite, to disseminate information and challenge long-cherished moral codes.
Their shareholders are thinking “who the hell is dumb enough to buy my shares?” They are stuck between a rock and a hard place as the MSM stocks continue to fall. This could not happen to a better group of losers either!
I disagree. The Enquirer is the Enquirer. Pointing out 3 or 4 times that they have been correct over the last 15 years doesn't change that.
Of course, the MSM is the MSM...
For the record, this will be very easy to verify and I think it is very likely true.
As to why the Enquirer IS on the story, they’ve got nothing to lose in the way of reputation for sensitivity; but they have a stake in staying on the story just in case. It’s only good insurance, to keep a tail on Edwards; there might be vindication of the Enquirer and no further threat of a lawsuit.
Who doubts they were threatened with legal action? And if they were, it’s quite reasonable to have someone watching him 24/7.
More DeathWatch™ stuff.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003830471
‘Denver Post’ and ‘Pioneer Press’ To Run ‘Politico’ Coverage
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=87236
How’s 2008? Disaster For Newspapers, Magazines and Radio
http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/
Perilously funded papers hit the wall
Caption to third photo [November 17, 2006]:
"Up close and darn cute! John Edwards yesterday.(Roxanne Roberts - The Washington Post)"
"The people have spoken: John Edwards is still hunky enough to give that presidential thing another try.
"Oh my God, he's even cuter in person!" gushed one woman at Borders on Wednesday night. ...
Edwards, sporting a blazer, open shirt and green "Save Darfur" wristband,
fielded questions from the overflow crowd of 500 and then signed books for two hours."
The problem is that this is a story that has been out, waiting to be researched, for over a year. Only the Enquirer did the homework. Now why could that be? Such a major potential story on a man running for President, and they don’t even research it?
The Enquirer even says they have been researching this story literally for months, and when they had the chance to place Edwards at the hotel, with the woman and the child (leaving at 2:40 AM) they jumped at it.
There is a lot more evidence to this story than to what Woodward and Bernstein used.
I guess the point I was trying to make was that at least the NE doesn’t pretend to be what it’s not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.