ABC gets John Edwards to admit affair; does this let mainstream media off the hook?

Now that a reputable news organization has gotten John Edwards to admit that yes, he did have an affair with novice filmmaker Rielle Hunter, questions remain for mainstream media outlets, the National Enquirer and for Edwards himself.

ABC News is reporting that Edwards has admitted an affair with Hunter, a filmmaker who met him in New York City two years ago in a bar. She says she pitched him ideas for campaign Web videos; the National Enquirer has reported that she has a child by the former presidential candidate, catching Edwards while he was visiting Hunter at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles on July 22. (see their first story here; Hilton story here)

Edwards has admitted being at the Hilton, but denies he is the baby's father based on the date of the child's birth. He also denies paying Hunter any hush money. But the Dallas Morning News has an admission from a Texas lawyer who chaired Edwards' campaign finance committee saying that they did pay to move Hunter from South Carolina to another city.

CBS News anchor Bob Schieffer also reported that Edwards called him today, suggesting that the politician has decided to tell his story to journalists who he trusts. Schieffer said Edwards cited the continual pounding by the tabloids, repeating stories he says are largely untrue, which prompted him to come forward. And Edwards still controls 17 delegates, leaving open the question of how he will deral with them and the Democratic convention.

So the questions which remain are significant:

-- If Edwards' admission is true, the Enquirer only has the story half right. Can journalists prove or disprove his story?

-- Bloggers and some press critics have groused at mainstream news organizations for not picking up the Enquirer's story (wonder if these are the same people who complained when the New York Times ran what some considered a thinly-sourced story about rumors of John McCain having an inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist?) But if Edwards has told the truth, the Enquirer may only have the story half right. Doesn't this prove mainstream news outlets were right to be careful with the story?

-- Edwards isn't a candidate for president anymore and now probably won't even appear at the Democratic National Convention. Is this story worth the exhaustive news coverage the cable channels are giving it now?

--  Since Edwards visited Hunter at the Beverly Hilton when I and about 200 other TV critics were there for the TCA summer press tour, how did we miss him?

--  Why is the only photo of Edward's visit released by the Enquirer so blurry and inconclusive?

-- Did Edwards' surrogates and Democratic officials browbeat mainstream reporters into disregarding the story? And why did Edwards choose to make his revelations to ABC News and Bob Woodruff?

If Edwards thinks releasing this at the start of the Olympics and a weekend will blunt the story, he's in for a serious surprise come Monday morning.

Comments

I'm an idiot-- I meant to say didn't trigger her cancer to recur since she was in remission.

Normally I would agree that I don't understand why women stay after their husbands cheat.

But in Elizabeth Edwards case, I think leaving isn't part of the equation because she's terminally ill. As a mother, she knows her children are already facing a devastating loss. Leaving their father now would create another sense of loss for them. She probably feels staying with him offers their children the most stability possible. Their lives are going to face such a dramatic and painful upheaval when she's gone.

I suspect she believes pulling the family apart now means the kids will have yet another obstacle (reconciling or moving back in with their dad) to overcome when that dreaded time comes. Even though he cheated, he's still their dad. He'll have to be the main source of solace and security for their children and she probably thinks it's best if they don't become estranged at this point.

I just hope if she did really know about the affair in 2006 that the stress and betrayal didn't trigger her remission.

[Gretchen]

What a shame!! What I don't understand is why these women stay after being cheated on?

A few things I don't believe:
1. Edwards told his wife about the affair in 2006.
2. Most importantly- the baby ISN'T his!

Another thing- Cheating is bi-partison

[beltwaybandit]

Tom and Bill O.:

I agree that Gingrich was guilty of the same things Edwards and Clinton are...although I did not recall Gingrich's wife was fighting a battle with cancer at the time, certainly not a public battle like Elizabth Edwards.

But...if a Presidential candidate is willing and able to lie so blatantly to the people on a question posed directly, what does that forecast his presidency to be like?

That makes it a big deal.

Bush had no such instances during his candidcy. His lies during his presidency were not foreshadowed during the campaign.

[Bill O]

Maybe Senator Edwards can get a cushy job over at FOX 'news' like two time adulterer Newt Gingrich.
Cheating on a cancer stricken wife didn't seem to hurt HIM too much.

[Tom]

I just can't get too worked up about it. There are so many things I'd like to ask someone running for president before asking whether he's an adulterer. Bush & Co.'s lies about the war are much more troubling.

This story is important because a Presidential candidate out and out lied to the American people. That's a big deal. Perhaps not to some, but to most. When you choose to become a public servant for the highest office in the country, you put yourself befire the public for scrutiny and your integrity, ethics and honesty are up for judgement. John Edwards has now demonstrated that he has none.

And there is more about Edwards. Like why his wife chooses to spin it that he showed great courage. Courage? Lying about the situation for two years and then when caught coming clean? Please. No sympathy.

Like Elizabeth Edwards knowing for two years what kind of guy he is and still stumping for him for President. Shows a lot about her integrity and ethics. (Sorry, I know she's sick and hope she wins her battle. But integrity? Not in this case. She helped propel the lie to the American people.)

Like one of their statements indicating the affair occurred in 2006 and was then over, and that he then told his wife, who was furious. Over? Then explain the appearance in the middle of the night at the hotel in July 2008. I hope they don't want us to believe he was making a middle of the night visitation to the see the kid.

As for the media...The Enquirer may have gotten only part of ther story right. But they got part of it. As opposed to the newspapers and TV folks out there who did...NOTHING...for two years.

This looks and feels a lot like the Clinton years of the late 90s. The Democratic Party (and the country) is still paying for that B-S.

No wonder Republicans still manage to be competitive despite Bush and Co.

And no wonder why the Democratic controlled congress has approval ratings of 9% versus Bush's "lofty" 36%.

And no wonder why newspapers in this country are shrinking rapidly.

Let's see...50 cents for the SPTimes in its new, smaller newshole. With no information about a presidential candidate lying to the public. Or, the National Enquirer?

I'll take the one that gets the story out.

Which one was that again?

[Taylor]

This woman looks a lot like Camilla Parker Bowles. The MSM waited until they had conclusive evidence, also this is a good time to give the GOP a leg up on Obama. So much for the left wing liberal press. The pendulum shall swing again!!! lol

[John Austin personal training]

The MSM waited a year to report this breaking story. The end of John Edwards, I don't thinks so; he is too craven. I would hope he would dedicate all his time to his family. I suppose their private affairs are none of our business. Newt, Foley, L. Craig, Livingston, Vitter, Spitzer, McGrevey, Packwood, Clinton – there is a long list of public people with personal failings. I am not put off by the act or the lying (What do they have to lose at that point?), and as a general rule, I don’t think adultery should be a disqualifier for office. What is repellent to me is the hypocrisy, the cravenness that they hold on to power after being caught, and the humiliation their spouses have to endure when used as props when they make public admissions. They are self-absorbed malignant narcissists. Bob Packwood ran for reelection. Bob Livingston did it right; he got caught and resigned in hours. I did notice McCain gave a firm no comment to an Edwards affair.

[Eric Deggans]

As usual, Drinklime, it's not about the sex, it's about the coverup. Edwards lied to the press and to his supporters. And if the Dallas Morning News is right, he used campaign funds to pay or her moving expenses, which could be illegal.

I don't like seeing a story about infidelity take up so much media space, either. But when a major politician gets busted on a major lie to the press and public, you've got to expect some attention....

[drinklime]

oh no an AFFAIR!!!!!!!!!!!! This is certainly more important than the war breaking out between Russia and Georgia. After all, someone had SEXXXXXX

[tim]

This so called Main Stream Media is so in the pocket of the Democratic Party that it's embarrassing. A Presidential candidate is fibbing about having an affair and The New York Times deems this un-newsworthy? They've ignored this story - until they apparently have been told that Edwards wont be a VP pick, so now it's OK to release the info - IN JOHN EDWARDS' OWN WORDS. This is not journalism, it's PR for their chosen party. Last week some jerk writes a new slam book about Bush and Iraq and he's on the front page and every talk show going. No proof, no sources, no 2nd opinion. Just go with the story because it's bad for Republicans. McCain has been ignored for the first 1/2 of his campaign. Now NBC, ABC, CBS and The New York Times counter his campaign commercials and call this analysis news. I wouldn't trust these people to tell me the weather forecast.