John Edwards and the National Enquirer
My newspaper column
Previous post and discussion here.
Is the National Enquirer a legitimate news source?
When the tabloid publishes a story impugning the reputation of a national figure without clear substantiation, how should mainstream newspapers handle it?
When does an allegation, fueled by the inevitable Internet dogpile, hit its tipping point and become worth publishing simply because so many people are talking about it?
Those are among the questions newspapers have wrestled with for the past 10 days.
The national figure in question is former Sen. John Edwards. The story reported so far is sketchy at best, but the Enquirer alleges that Edwards is carrying on with a woman, not his wife. The tabloid reports that its reporters found him leaving a hotel room in Beverly Hills at a time when my mother always said nothing good ever happens. The paper also said he is the father of the woman’s child.
The problem -- for us, at least -- is that no evidence supporting the affair or the paternity has been published.
Journalists are skeptical of what politicians say and also what people say about politicians. It's tough to publish a story like this when we can’t tell if it is true.
In this case, no one outside of the Enquirer is speaking on the record. The Enquirer says it has incriminating photographs, but hasn't published them. No documentation has been published. Best I can tell, nothing has surfaced yet that makes this story anything more than supposition and insinuation.
That doesn't make it false, but it doesn't help anyone know whether to believe it, either.
Of course, Edwards hasn’t stepped out and addressed the allegations directly, which is curious and, in my opinion, unwise. On the other hand, Bill Clinton taught us that some public denials about sex aren't all they are cracked up to be.
But the story will come out, one way or the other. Several newspapers are pursuing the allegations. So far none has published any independent confirmation of the Enquirer's story.
Last Thursday, the story made its way into mainstream newspapers with a story about Edwards ducking questions about the Enquirer report after a meeting in Washington. On Friday, we published a McClatchy Newspapers report that the birth certificate of the child the Enquirer claims was fathered by Edwards did not identify the name of the father.
Ever since the tabloids were moved away from the checkout line at the grocery store, I stopped reading the National Enquirer. I understand that the stereotype I have of it being filled with stories about three-headed pigs and out-of-body experiences is outdated. I’m told that it has gotten more accurate, particularly as it involves political scandals. Maybe so.
Perhaps it will be dead-on accurate with the Edwards story. But, with the anonymous quotes and statements without any support, that's not good enough for a story like this.
Our duty to the public is clear: It is to print what we believe to be true, and to present a faithful and accurate picture of life in the community. As a result, we are late on some stories. In these days of the Internet, when information rockets around the world at the click of a cursor, those standards may seem old-fashioned. But we aren't changing them.
We will publish further developments about Edwards that have documentation or quote someone in a position to know by name. If the allegations about him are true, I will be disappointed, as I was last week when Sen. Ted Stevens was indicted. But I won’t be surprised. I passed that stage over politicians' foibles long ago.
Update: Ted Vaden of the N&O comments on his paper's coverage.
Comments (19)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Gee, was facts important in the Duke rape case? I do not think so. Nancy Grace , made this statement on day two of Duke case, what do you mean if they are guilty, they are guilty. The liberal media tried the guys in the press. Facts had nothing to to with this case, it was media hysteria, trying to get some democrat votes. Thank god the Yankee press and Fox News and some lawyer, saw this was a liberal sham. Read the book, folks. You may be surprised that people like Dan Blue, got Jessie down to stir up (stinky stuff). Sorry Dan, the media covered up for you, Jessie ratted you out.
Posted on August 3, 2008 6:20 AM
The most damning piece of evidence is his unwillingness to completely publicly deny it. With his career and livelihood (not to mention marriage) on the line, what sort of individual would not deny it? ...Someone who is hoping the truth doesn't come out, and the whole thing blows over.
Posted on August 3, 2008 11:08 AM
"Is the National Enquirer a legitimate news source? "
Hmmm...let's see...
1) Monica Lewinsky
2)Jesse Jackson's illegitimate child
3) Rush Limbaugh drug use story
Let's compare their "legitimacy" to that of the News & Record:
1) Chief David Wray story, fabricated entirely on claims of "racism" which have yet to be proven.
Mr. Robinson, I'd be careful at whom I throw stones.
The N&R holding their head high and refusing to print anything about Edwards until the "facts" are all proven is laughable in the shadow of the Chief Wray story.
Posted on August 3, 2008 11:31 AM
Phony Baloney John Edwards strikes again -
Posted on August 3, 2008 11:48 AM
The Nat.Enq. is in biz to make money. There is no way the tabloid had reporters staking out Edwards sans cameras. The DNC convention is just a couple+ weeks away. Look for a full photo/video splash to hit the media just prior to the convention. This will be the optimum time to maximize their profits and to have their name mentioned during a time when the democrats are are in the news 24/7.
They make money, get exposure on the networks and the scandal loving public gets what it wants.
Johnny's going to have to face the music then.
Posted on August 3, 2008 4:29 PM
Jesse, Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewisky story, .
Posted on August 3, 2008 4:32 PM
Drudge broke the Lewinsky story, but NE had the most in-depth coverage, coverage that no other publication had.
Posted on August 3, 2008 9:51 PM
Jaycee:
The Edwards thing could definitely be true. But arguing that the Enquirer is a good or even legitimate news source because it's gotten a couple right (by paying informants, even if they can't confirm the information) is just ludicrous.
Whatever one thinks of the Wray story or any other story in the N&R, it's more instructive to look at the number of libel suits or necessary corrections when comparing this or any other paper with something like the Enquirer.
The Enquirer has a long, hilarious history of facing and losing libel suits -- it it's not all in the distant past, in its days of stories about aliens and four headed men. They royally screwed up the Elizabeth Smart thing in 2002 after paying for and then printing false information which had to be retracted, paid off a libel suit over the Gary Condit thing the next year, lost huge in a libel suit with Kate Hudson in 2006 and several smaller ones since. As we speak they're facing a number of suits from celebrities and less-notables that look like losers.
Any national publication that will give you cash to tell them nasty things about people is going to get some honest (though ethically suspect) informers to tell it on people. But just as often they're going to be fooled or have to decide if entertainment and the possibility of a scandal is more important than the truth, which can be hard to confirm. The Enquirer has shown us time and time again which way they'll go on that question.
I wouldn't be surprised if a politician was cheating on his wife -- but I'd be even less surprised if a paper like the Enquirer ran a story and photos about a cheating scandal that proved to be complete crap (territory they've already covered on many occasions, most recently with their "Cameron Diaz cheating" photos that they had to retract and apologize for).
Also -- Drudge did break the Lewinsky thing, and the coverage by daily newspapers (especially the Washington Post) was much better than The Enquirer's -- just not as giddy and lengthily graphic. But the Left and Right in this country go back and forth on whether they think the Enquirer can be trusted, depending on who's getting slimed. A lot of the same lefties who think the Edwards thing is horrible were quiet or even spoke up to defend the Enquirer when it was suggesting that President Bush was back on the sauce.
Posted on August 4, 2008 1:57 AM
Mr. Killian, to suggest that a news organization be judged by the number of "corrections" it chooses to publish (corrections determined by the editors, not by virtue of actually being wrong) is pretty silly.
When you shuck it down to the cob, you can't ignore the Enquirer's accuracy in some very notable stories.
Posted on August 4, 2008 9:53 AM
But how do we know, jaycee, which is accurate and which is not? Normally, you can make an educated judgment based on based on direct quotes from people in a position to know, or by someone who is a direct witness or by primary documents. In this case, there is none of that.
Posted on August 4, 2008 10:15 AM
Jaycee:
A newspaper does "choose" to run corrections -- but when the things you've printed are clearly false, not making that choice will often lead to a lawsuit. As the Enquirer could tell you.
I've got to wonder -- if the Enquirer gets three big stories right before anybody this year but is successfully sued for libel for eight and has to correct and/or retract ten (neither would be a record for them), I'm supposed to be impressed by that why?
How many times do they have to get it so wrong that they have to retract it and are successfully sued before I'm allowed to question their accuracy without being silly?
Posted on August 4, 2008 10:41 AM
In the Words of Dr. Evil.......
Riiiiiiggggghtttt !!!!!!!
Posted on August 4, 2008 12:41 PM
Readers are still waiting on the N&R's "correction" or apology for the Chief Wray debacle, in which none of the racist claims have been proven true. No evidence, no photos, nada.
How many big stories does the N&R have to get wrong before we stop believing anything they print?
Posted on August 4, 2008 1:09 PM
No matter how many times you misconstrue our coverage of that case, it won't make what you write about it true.
Posted on August 4, 2008 1:13 PM
And how many times, Mr. Robinson, must folks tell you how far off the mark you were before you understand that you erred? I know you constantly tell us readers that we're just rehashing the same argument over and over...but in reality we're just pointing out, over and over, how you were mistaken and we're waiting for some acknowledgment on your part of your deficiency.
Ignoring us won't make what you wrote "true" either.
Posted on August 4, 2008 3:03 PM
Wonder if John Edwards' love-child turned out to be Bat Boy? Now that would be something!
Posted on August 4, 2008 4:52 PM
In the eight months since the National Enquirer first broke the story of John Edwards and a possible love child, he has denied it several times. But, interestingly, he has not sued the paper for libel. Clearly, if it's untrue, he has a great case against them. A simple paternity test is all that is needed as evidence to show that the NE has libeled him. Wonder why he's not taking legal action? I think it's obvious.
Posted on August 6, 2008 4:22 PM
I would not be surprised if Edwards has a love child somewhere. But maybe this baby is the child of some other wayward man. His ignoring the story could be his way of not drawing more attention to it. His denial would be met with more negative attention from those intent on believing what they already believe. No matter what the truth is, some people will make up their mind based on the barest hint of impropriety. As my dad liked to say: I've already made up my mind. Don't confuse me with a bunch of facts.
As far as comparing to the Wray case, in that situation, the N-R had named sources "in a position to know" quoted throughout the stories.
Posted on August 6, 2008 9:39 PM
It's not the weight of the evidence. It's the seriousness of the charge.
Posted on August 11, 2008 1:03 AM