Among former Sen. John Edwards' other sins against humanity, add this one: He helped the National Enquirer gain more credibility than any supermarket tabloid deserves.
The blogosphere is abuzz with criticism of the mainstream media for allegedly failing to pursue the story of Edwards' alleged "love child" when the National Enquirer first reported it last year. In fact, major media did try to confirm the story without using the Enquirer as a source. It appears most of us in the MSM tend to be hung up on stodgy old-fashioned virtues like facts. The Edwards bombshell became problematic when none of the main parties in the story would go on the record to confirm the allegation. If you're going to use unnamed sources, which is questionable enough as a practice, at least make them your own sources, not those of a supermarket tabloid.
So let me make sure I've got this. The NY Times found it more than suitable to print a story filled with innuendo from unnamed sources about an affair that no one can claim actually happened? Somehow that was "newsworthy"?
The National Enquirer didn't rely solely on unnamed sources. They actually sent some reporters to actually watch this guy and they scooped the regular media. The MSM got their ass kicked on this story and they don't like it.
I'd like to think that Edwards did the public a favor and exposed just how inept, incompetent and arrogant the national print media actually is. Guys like Page live in a bubble where they think that news doesn't occur until a reputable mainstream news organization breaks it; which they do less and less.
These big time newspaper honchos keep wondering why their readership declines? Maybe someone can introduce them to this concept called "investigative reporting".
No comments:
Post a Comment