News-Record.com

Hmmm...the National Enquirer was right and the N&R was wrong.
I guess we can expect Mr. Robinson's apology to Chief David Wray any day now...

hmmm...jaycee interprets skepticism with unattributed information as being wrong.

Now I understand his insistence that we apologize to the former chief!

this better be front page above the fold tomorrow.

Is there an "or else" there, keith?

Nah, just messing with you. It's going to be stripped across the top, over the Olympics.

I guess the "move along folks, nothing to see (read) here" official position is now inoperative, huh?

Let's see if I have this right...
If the National Enquirer has a story about a big-wig Democrat then we should automatically exercise "skepticism with unattributed information".
But if Lorraine Ahearn writes something largely constructed of unattributed information then we should automatically accept no explanation other than hers regardless of the facts.
Wow, I see the light...Gee, thanks, Mr. Robinson.

The first time I met Mr. Edwards, I thought he was a gift from heaven, with all the corrupt politicians we produce in this state. The second time I met him, I knew I was wrong. now I truly feel sorry for him. A man that stands up and lies like it did, must have a major problem. Not the first person to mess and will not be the last. I hope it can make it up to his family. Now how about all those knuckleheads, that their money, may have gone to his girl friend. John. did you donate to the cause?

Let's read what Byron York had to say this morning at NRO:

"But the question is not whether the news organizations should simply repeat the Enquirer’s reporting. It’s whether they are actively pursuing the story, doing their own reporting in an effort to confirm the basic allegations that Edwards had an affair with campaign staffer Rielle Hunter, and then had a baby with her, and is now covering it up."

Now just WHO might benefit from reading this?

York goes on:

"The only situation in which those controls don’t seem to apply is in Edwards’ home state of North Carolina, where intense interest in the story has prompted some local press outlets to report the news — and even do some reporting on their own."

Let's see now....which local press outlets did some reporting on their own?

Let's get down to what's important -
I wanna see some pictures of Edwards' girlfriend so I can judge her against Monica Lewinsky - can't help but wonder who had the best set of assets, Edwards' girl or Monica.

Bubba, you say that "move along" baloney alot. As if that's what I'm doing by posting about it. As if that's what we have done and will do when it is on the front page. Doesn't fit.

Then you quote some guy who suggests that there isn't any reporting, although it is now being reported, not by a local outlet but by a national one. And for some reason you think that the reports of the N&O and the Charlotte Observer are not good enough and that we should do something on our own rather than publishing their stories. Makes no sense. Does Edwards live in Greensboro? No. Do we have a Washington bureau? No. Why would you care that we do our own reporting as long as we published everything that the other "North Carolina papers" published, which we did?

Oh, and what is the proof that he had a "baby by her?" I guess evidence doesn't matter so long as it is someone you don't like.

jaycee, we continue to have this conversation. You create this fairy tale about us making up information and repeat it non-stop as if that makes it true. It doesn't. Get over it. Everyone, including the chief, has moved on with their lives.

John, from what I've read over the past few years I don't think the N&R has the capacity to do investigative journalism beyond that which local level city/county government officials provide.

Blah blah, woof woof.

The history of hero worship of Edwards at the N&R, is well established, so it's no surprise you can't (or won't) offer anything better than to say that the N&O and the Observer are doing all the work that's needed.

Oh, go back and read the sentence by York regarding what he said about the baby. This time, do it for comprehension, rather than the knee jerk reaction with which you initially responded.

Anything else you feel the need to say in defense of your indefensible lack of judgment, John?

If not, why don't we all just chalk this up to one more example of yet another entry on the glowing.....umm, growing list of JR crash and burns.

It's beginning to be the stuff of legend.

Hmmm...seems I recall when Edwards first ran for president the N&R had a reporter traveling with him. Edwards apparently was important enough for the N&R to spend a lot of time and money trailing along behind him and printing every gushing adoration story they could conjure up.
Now that he's in trouble, the N&R buries it's head in the sand with it's fingers in it's ears while other NC newspapers take the lead and actually do some reporting.
Yes, I continually bring up the N&R's Chief Wray debacle.
Easy for you to say everyone should "get over it." Yes, Chief Wray has moved on...after a racially biased reporter and newspaper printed rumor after rumor after rumor and swayed the public into believing he was some sort of racial ogre and he was unjustly forced out of his position.
How would you feel if another local paper printed story after story after story that John Robinson was a child molester based on nothing but unsubstantiated and unproven statements from disgruntled employees?

I'm glad I'm becoming legendary for disagreeing with you in your world, Bubba. There are many, many worse things to be.

jaycee, John Edwards was a vice presidential candidate four years ago. Yes, we traveled with him some. You think our stories were gushing only because you didn't like his candidacy.

Why you two think that this is a story we must assign a team of reporters to escapes me. We published the same stories Raleigh and Charlotte did. You think having our byline on the story makes it any different?

As for your senseless analogy, I feel that way now, with you making up lies about our reporting and passing them off as truth.

"I'm glad I'm becoming legendary for disagreeing with you in your world, Bubba."

It's far more than "my world", john. i think you are quite aware of that fact.

By the way, the marginalization tactics aren't any more effective when you use them than they are when Cone uses them.

You need to do better. That's what this, and the several other threads on this subject have been all about.

Actually, bubba, other than the usual suspects, reader feedback on this topic has been supportive.

"Actually, bubba, other than the usual suspects, reader feedback on this topic has been supportive."

Yes, I'm sure.

I would be disappointed if you said otherwise.

Anything else you feel the need to say?

Just showing the difference between our worlds.

Nice to see you showing the front pages for comparison.
It's a great visual aid as you try to make up for running away from this story until you were forced to accept the truth.
When you had a reporter traveling with John Edwards a few years ago his news stories were crafted to elicit feelings from readers; I felt they were gushing. Many others felt they were adoring. Some felt they were mush. Some felt they were spot-on. Your reporter did what he was supposed to do--he wrote in such a manner as to guide the reader to a predetermined (liberal) point of view because your newspaper supported the liberal candidate. In some cases your reporter succeeded.
I never felt Edwards was worth spit, and I'm just sorry it took a horrible situation like this adultery thing for others to see it as well.

Most of us with even a few living brain cells had figured very early on that Edwards was a a lightweight, prissy, Charlatan. He lied (telling us he was a moderate who would decide each issue on the merits, but before the last syllable was out of his mouth he was on Ted Kennedy's lap like Charlie McCarthy) about who he was, so why should anyone be surprised about this issue? The only thing that surprised me was that he was caught with a woman!

And Mr. Robinson, you telling us hwere you come from is like Walter Cronkite feeling the need to tell us that he's a liberal, or Rosie telling us she's a lesbo! And most of the "usual suspects" had this figured out lomg before you elitist liberal shills for the Demo-Rats!

Figured I needed to show the actual newspaper as you and Bubba don't read it. :)

Front Page Greensboro News and Record only 45 minutes away from the home of DEMOCRAT senator of North Carolina. But here is the kicker

the FRONT PAGE ARTICLE is by
Howard Kurtz and Lois Romano from
THE WASHINGTON POST

nice reporting by our local paper.

"Just showing the difference between our worlds."

The first step towards realizing there's a problem is to admit that one exists. Now that you realize there's a lack of cutting edge reporting at the N&R perhaps there's a chance for change.....

John Robinson said:
Figured I needed to show the actual newspaper as you and Bubba don't read it. :)

Touche...I'll give ya that one! :)

My parrot reads it, though

He likes the glossy inserts that line his cage bottom tray.

It gives him a good and colorful target.

Wow! A bird cage joke!

Shades of the Algonquin Round Table!

"Shades of the Algonquin Round Table!"

Ah, but JR needs to practice if he would hope to be our very own Dorothy Parker.

OK, here's three factual matters pertaining to the story: the timeline, the hush money, and the paternity of the child. Now it seems perfectly clear to me that Edwards is lying about all three. The affair almost certainly extended beyond 2006, the child is almost certainly his, and the "hush money" tale involves only the most implausible plausible deniability (indeed, it hardly rises to Nixonian standards). Now, I predict that the press will drop all three, since the "story" (as Edwards shaped it on Friday) has emerged. Am I correct?

Brian, I agree.
The lib press will shrug it off and just say, "Hey, he made a 'mistake'" and move on to more important matters...like whether John McCain's TV commercials hurt Obama's feelings.