News-Record.com

I'm not a Big John Edwards fan; but I believe that the story is fine where it is.

Of course AP and the NYT haven't done anything on this. Hell-oooo...he's a big Dem and this is an election year; can't chance reporting anything that might be negative for the Dems. The details are there, very plainly published by the Enquirer and available for any other news service to investigate. If this was Karl Rove, do you honestly think that NO news service would check it out? Ridiculous.
Just look at the Juanita Broderick story from the late 1980's when NBC had an interview in which she detailed her rape by Bill Clinton. NBC would NOT air the story until after the elections.

Of course you won't print it.

Add that to just another reason the newspaper industry is failing.

Everybody picked up on the Craig story...and rightly so.

Everybody picked up on a several years old rumor of infidelity on the part of McCain...not once, but several times as they tried to make the story stick.

A portion of the story has been confirmed by Fox News.

You might consider using a modern equivalent, and much cheaper version of the AP...Technorati.

The biases of the sources are transparent...unlike the newspaper industry.

If a blogger is a liberal, progressive, conservative, or libertarian...they usually aren't shy about admitting that fact.

When people in the Media give to Democrats at a ratio of 100 to 1...and try to claim objectivity...people smell a rat.

If it were true that John Edwards were cheating on his wife, and had an illegitimate child by her...then that would destroy the picture the Legacy Media had glowingly painted of him standing at her side while she battled cancer. They are not shy about reporting McCain left his wife in the middle of a severe medical crisis (a despicable act)...at least Mccain left his wife instead of trying to live a lie.

Just some food for thought from my point of view.

jaycee, that position seems inconsistent with your let's-not-rush-to-judgment comments on police officers accused of this or that. What am I missing?

The problem, Thunder Pig -- did you actually choose that handle? -- is that what we have is John Edwards in a hotel, and, at some point, apparently evading the media. That's what Fox confirmed. It may be news, but it's pretty flimsy.

You might check your media giving ratio, too. That is based on a couple hundred journalists and people who classify themselves as journalists. I won't argue the political inclination of the media, but that's hardly a fair sample.

Not inconsistent at all. Enough information is out there to suggest inappropriate behavior. Isn't investigating inappropriate behavior what the news media is all about? Or should they only investigate Republican/conservative inappropriate behavior?
So go and investigate, and tell us what you find.

Does Obama Want Edwards Gone, check out this piece at our friends from slate . com

http://www.slate.com/id/2195914/#latedict

If you say so, jaycee, but I'm thinking that your comments on the police assault matter suggest otherwise about unsubstantiated allegations:

here, here, here or here.

I agree with you about the news media investigating. I submit they are.

"For our part, we got nothing to publish"

That's right.

It's not like a (non-existent) hate crime at Guilford College, or something, is it?

Nothing to see or talk about here. Move along, please.......

Am I mistaken to say that Jesse Jackson remarks did not make many news outlets. I do not recall reading it anywhere. The Duke men were raped by the liberal press. The Eve Carson folks have been getting a free ride from the press. which they should. Like wise so should the Duke men. Most of the time you are innocent until proven guilty, the Duke men were guilty until proven innocent. Which anyone with a IQ of three should have know it in a week. Jaycee called this on day one, it took the liberal papers until after the election. Papers what I am saying liberal papers would have send the guys to prison for 20 years, just to get votes. Getting facts from the NY Times is kind of like herding chickens. That is why their profits have fell by 82%.

Well, let's see, Bubba: one difference between the Edwards case and Guilford College is that criminal charges were filed against some Guilford College students. When charges are filed against John Edwards, that will certainly make the news.

Mr. Robinson, there's a big difference between the media investigating and reporting facts and the media purposely acting as a biased mouthpiece for one side over the other.
Didn't Lorraine Ahearn's debacle over Chief Wray teach you guys anything?
Again, please answer my question...if Karl Rove were accused of marital infidelity while his wife was undergoing cancer treatment and fathering a child out of wedlock during that time do you honestly think the media would ignore it as they have the Edwards story? Your thoughts, please...

Ah, yes, it always comes back to Chief Wray with you, doesn't it? Let me quote you from another post about another story but still on the topic of what is new and what is not: "JR, criminal charges have nothing to do with protecting oneself from the devastation of public outcry when unsubstantiated and inflammatory accusations are made by Nelson Johnson and gleefully given front page exposure by the N&R."

So, if it makes you feel better, assume that we are taking your advice on the Edwards case.

As for Rove, you say the media is ignoring the Edwards case. I say they are investigating it to find out what might actually be true. But in any case, you know my answer: the same rules for Rove apply. Of course, I doubt the Enquirer would actually report such a story on him or that Fox News would follow it, given that he's a commentator for them.

John Robinson:

Yes, the handle actually is a handle from back in the days of CB Radio. I decided to recycle it, and it lends itself well to several over-the-top uses such as calling my live-streams of debates Thundercast, etc.

I'm just tired of the Legacy Media covering up for their own in the Democrat Party, and stomping our guys in the face every chance they get.

It's been two years since I have purchased a local paper, and I've not missed it. My TV is for watching DVDs or content streamed from my computer.

I still read you several times a day, though.

Again, Mr. Robinson, I'll argue there is a great disparity between professional journalistic investigation and using your newspaper as a mouthpiece for a race-baiters.
I applaud the former and loathe the latter.
I have yet to see any evidence that the AP or other outlets are "investigating" the Edwards scandal. They're ignoring it just as you're making excuses for not publishing anything about it.
So you honestly think that the liberal ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN would NOT be airing a story that Karl Rove had a mistress and fathered a child by her while his wife was undergoing cancer treatment and was just caught the other night ducking and hiding from reporters after meeting with said mistress?
Please don't insult our intelligence.

Thanks, thunder. I like the thunder part, it was the pig part that I wondered about.

jaycee, seems that Edwards story fits perfectly into your "unsubstantiated and inflammatory" category to me.

You say the media is ignoring the story. I say they are investigating it. Here is your evidence of at least one investigation from the LA Times. (It's down a bit in the story.)

Since you've asked and I answered, here's one for you: Do you think Fox would be on top of that same hypothetical Rove story?

So your position is that it's OK to publish "unsubstantiated and inflammatory" stories about a police chief whom the local race-baiters want you to assist in removing but you won't do it when it involves a big-name Democrat? Is that a News policy or an Editorial policy??
Answer my question about the Big Five liberal media outlets and Rove, please. Your thoughts?

Don't twist it, jaycee. You think that's what we did because it doesn't jibe with the way you want the world to be. Let's stay on the topic at hand: what substantiation do we have to publish a story? Some National Enquirer reporters and photographers -- hey, where are the photos? -- saw Edwards in a hotel in the early morning and pursued him into the men's room. Boy, that's some good stuff.

Let the investigation continue, which is what is happening. What's the problem with that?

I have answered your question, but you don't seem to be answering mine. Wonder why?

Lack of substantiation had never stopped the N&R from publishing stories before. Publishing something before an investigation has been conducted never stopped the N&R before.
So you're saying that NOW, since it involves a big-wig Democrat, you're all of a sudden changing the way the N&R reports the news?
Where were the "photos" of Chief Wray being a racist? Does that mean it didn't happen? Oh, no...the N&R was wrong??
If the story were about Karl Rove instead of John Edwards it would be lead-off for all 5 liberal mainstream media outlets for days and days. You know that as well as I do.

Stand firm on this one, John. At least until the Enquirer or Fox come up with the evidence they say they've got--photos, videos, and according to Fox, an Enquirer reporter's notebook found by the hotel security guard outside the men's room where Edwards was allegedly hiding.

Failure to produce evidence they claim to possess is called a clue.

"Well, let's see, Bubba: one difference between the Edwards case and Guilford College is that criminal charges were filed against some Guilford College students."

Is that a fact?

If I remember correctly, police charged no one after arriving at the scene. After subsequent investigation, police declined to charge anyone again for the incident in question.

A complaint was filed by those who were involved in the altercation, and the complaint was later dismissed.

None of this stopped you and the paper from breathlessly promoting the notion of a "hate crime', adding to the hysteria with day after day of A1 above the fold coverage. And in at least the first instance, no charges had yet to be filed.

You had "nothing to go on" in that particular case, It was just another example of your bad judgment, of which the evidence and the damage done from past episodes of such are still being felt in the community to this day.

Where was the evidence that the Guilford College episode was a "hate crime"?

Leaving aside your obvious tendency to slant, would you do yourself, the paper, and your readers a favor and stop the pious pontification here?

The slant is bad enough.

jaycee, sometimes I wonder if you actually read what we wrote about Chief Wray. Your comments don't indicate it.

So, why do you continue to resist answering my question to you. It's not that hard.

Bubba, yet another difference is that those involved in the alleged, unsubstantiated affair have both denied it. In the Guilford case, the student beaten up took out charges and spoke to the news media about it. Guilford College acknowledged the fight occurred and held meetings about it. Apologies were offered.

But let's twist this around. So, in your mind, if we report the Edwards affair, we were fine with reporting the Guilford College fight, right?

"But let's twist this around. So, in your mind, if we report the Edwards affair, we were fine with reporting the Guilford College fight, right?"

I don't recall expressing that opinion about the Edwards story.

But by all means, "twist it around", as you say.

Mr. Robinson, you're being disingenuous and trying to avoid my question.
So you honestly think that the liberal ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN would NOT be airing a story that Karl Rove had a mistress and fathered a child by her while his wife was undergoing cancer treatment and was just caught the other night ducking and hiding from reporters after meeting with said mistress? Pu-leeasse...

Well, Bubba, you're the one who compared the Edwards story to the Guilford story. It only makes sense to me that if you think the Guilford story should not have been published, then the Edwards story should not be published.

Jaycee, I answered your question many comments ago: "As for Rove, you say the media is ignoring the Edwards case. I say they are investigating it to find out what might actually be true. But in any case, you know my answer: the same rules for Rove apply."

You, however, have avoided mine three times now. What's up with that?

Elizabeth, thank you for joining in and I apologize for the silliness of this.

I'm surprised to hear that you're waiting for someone else (AP, NYT, etc.) to come up with something. This is somewhat of a local (at least NC) story. Can the NR spare a political reporter to make a few phone calls? I'd assume that's been done, but you didn't mention it. Here's your chance.

You won't get this story -- if there is a story --with a few phone calls.

For jaycee and his insistence with the liberal TV networks, here is an update.

For Mr. Robinson and his claims that the media is not liberal:

“Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/143lkblo.asp

Just a couple days ago a poll of journalists revealed that over 200 had contributed money to Democrats, while only 20 had contributed money to Republicans. I can’t find the source for that right now, but it was reported on TV news.

jaycee, you were referring to the networks, and I provided some new additional information about three of them. Don't change the parameters now.

That other study you refer to has been raised and responded to in this comment thread. See comment by Thunder Pig.

And while you're here, why aren't you answering the Rove question?

"Well, Bubba, you're the one who compared the Edwards story to the Guilford story. It only makes sense to me that if you think the Guilford story should not have been published, then the Edwards story should not be published."

Oh please.....

No, John. I most certainly did NOT say the Guilford College story should not have been covered.

I criticized your judgment regarding the nature and extent of how you covered the story. The obvious slant was wrong-headed (a point you suddenly seemed to realize as the actual facts became known) and far too overblown in relation to the actual impact of the event.

Do you understand that?

Or am I wasting my time here?

Didn't mean to get you all riled, Bubba. You confused me with your comment quoting me saying we have nothing to publish and then you compared it with the Guilford College fight. I thought you meant we shouldn't have published that.

I know you didn't like the hate crime reference, but when we interviewed the victim that's how he referred to it, I believe. And he was involved and his thoughts seemed to be relevant to the story. That's certainly more than we have to go on with the Edwards story right now. But whatever, let's not rehash Guilford College again.

Are you saying we should publish a story that says a National Enquirer reporter saw John Edwards in a hotel after 2 in the morning and chased him into a men's room? Because there's no evidence of anything else occurring. At least right now.

You know that there's no question you're wasting your time here, but I'm glad to have you.

The "victim"?

That's not quite how events turned out.

You had "nothing to publish" except a report of a fight involving two groups of people, and later evidence showed that the "victim" 's group ended up being the instigators of the conflict.

Your statement was that you got nothing" (meaning no story) from AP or NYT, or any other sources because they didn't have any "independent confirmation of the story's truth.

You didn't even make an effort to find out more about the story.

Whatever happened to a news person figuratively kicking in some doors to see what might be found on the other side regarding a prominent NC politician? Did potentially important news about Edwards suddenly NOT be an item of interest, despite the many times he's been featured in your pages?

What are you waiting for? Do you think Edwards just might pick up the phone and give you an exclusive?

You and your staff needed to find the "credible source" upon which you make the story or discard the story.

You didn't even try. By your lack of efforts, you're telling your readers there's no story.

That's what I'm talking about here.

Mr. Robinson, I can only assume that all networks, Fox included, would carry the Rove story were it to surface. However, it hasn't. Yet the Edwards story has surfaced and is getting virtually no coverage. Why?

That's hardly the way the Guilford fight occurred. You're saying the guy who was beat us wasn't a victim? OK, whatever you say.

Publishing a newspaper every day means you write what happened in that time period. It's easy to look back as more evidence is brought to light and say, "ha, it didn't happen the way you said it did."

"Kicking in some doors?" Where do you get this stuff?

You are right about one thing. There needs to be a credible source to go with the story. We don't have that source yet. Best I can tell, no news organization, including the Enquirer, has that source yet. That's why there have been no published reports outside of the Enquirer.

If it makes you feel better, let's say we learned from all the mistakes you enumerate in the Guilford fight and we're waiting for "all the facts" to come in before we write about Edwards.

"...let's say we learned from all the mistakes you enumerate in the Guilford fight and we're waiting for 'all the facts' to come in before we write about Edwards."

Somehow, I find both of those statements difficult to believe.

I'm not alone in that feeling.

Bubba said:
"Somehow, I find both of those statements difficult to believe.
I'm not alone in that feeling."

You're right, bubba.
I see where the the US House today formally apologized for Jim Crow laws and slavery.
Is the N&R ready to apologize to Chief David Wray?

Well, that's two of you.

Jaycee, that'll happen when Asheboro votes to allow liquor sales.

Oh. Wait a minute. Never mind.

"Is the N&R ready to apologize to Chief David Wray?"

I don't think the chances of that happening are very good, jaycee.

Last I heard, "anthropogenic global warming" has made a permanent and irreversible change to the climate in Hell.

What's the weather forecast for Hell?

Let's see now:

The story has appeared here, and here.

Has it appeared in the News and Record?

I'm disappointed in you, Bubba. Yes, it appeared in our paper on Friday, with a front page look.

And yet you chose not to comment on it here.

Imagine that!

No explanation whatsoever.

I'm disappointed with you, John.

Why would I comment on it here? We got a story from a credible source referring to documentation, which is what I said in the original post that we would publish when we get it.

Whatever you say, JR.......

There's absolutely no relevance at all, right?