Irony, Thy Name is National Enquirer

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing.




I've always had a healthy disrespect for tabloids. In fact, throughout my college years, when I was ensconced in my studies of media and journalism, I considered the term "tabloid journalism" an oxymoron. Boy, is my face red. But, not so red as is the Gray Lady's, I should think. She's now playing catch up on news her editors did not think "fit to print."

Scandal has turned Mr. Edwards into a pathetic has-been. It's had much the same effect on the news bosses at the mainstream media, who used to be the gatekeepers for all things fit to print. When the Enquirer broke the story months ago – while Mr. Edwards was still in the race – they treated it like poison ivy. “Classically not a Times-like story,” sniffed Craig Whitney, the standards editor of The New York Times. This was the same paper, you may recall, that recently ran an innuendo-laden story on John McCain and his friendship with an attractive lobbyist a decade or so ago. No wonder critics accuse the MSM of double standards – one for Democrats, and another for Republicans.

Indeed, the Enquirer turned up its nose at McCain non-story. It would seem, wisely so. This and other revelations from The New Republic -- they, of the Stephen Glass debacle. That The National Enquirer is burying the bona fide press corps in the sack, is shaping up to be the story of the year.

Normally, in the pitched tabloid battle for exclusives, losing a competitive bombshell like the McCain scandal would send Perel into fits. Not this time. Five Enquirer reporters had spent more than a month in 2007 chasing down the same rumors but failed to uncover any documentary evidence. "I wouldn't have run that piece, there was nothing in it," Perel told me recently about the Times story, which received widespread criticism when it ran. "It was filled with innuendo. . . . When you're done reading it, you're like, there's no there there."

My first intimation that the Enquirer might just be a force to be reckoned with came while I was watching a documentary on the O.J. Simpson trial. (No. It did not come during the actual trial; a story which became so burdensome, day after day, that I extended great effort to tune it out.) But, I was somewhat taken aback to hear more legitimate reporters speak in respectful terms about the quality reporting the Enquirer did on O.J. While other reporters were beating minutiae to death, the Enquirer was willing to get dirty, and in doing so, kept breaking the big stories. They became the go to source during that scandal.

In fact, the barbarians have been at the gates ever since the O. J. Simpson trial, which turned out to be a cultural and racial event of immense significance. The MSM couldn't bear to dumpster-dive into the lurid details, even as an insatiable public gobbled them up. That was when they began to lose their grip on deciding what is news. With the explosion of the blogosphere, their power is gone for good.

It seems that while many of the major media brokers are busy chasing headlines, Enquirer reporters are chasing actual stories. I speak not of the kinds of stories they do, but of the way they do their reporting. Like it or not they are doing actual investigative journalism -- something the TNR piece makes clear -- while far too many so-called reporters are writing stories from press releases and proving to be knee-pad wearing whores for the same unreliable sources, again and again.




New York Times "Reporter" Judith Miller
photo: Kevin Wolf AP


Nowhere has the whoredom of mainstream press been more evident than with the media circus over VP selection. Massive resources have been allocated for reporters to camp out on lawns and whip themselves, and, sadly, the public, into a frenzy over something that we were all going to find out anyway. Why is it so important to get a story first, when no one, but no one, will give a shit two weeks from now who "broke" the "Biden is the VP pick" story? The only thing mildly interesting in this woeful display has been watching some bloggers and reporters step on their cranks, in their haste to "get it first."

What is more important? Getting it first, or getting it right?

Perhaps the paper of record will be able to reestablish its cred with the newest investigation into John Edwards's smarminess. This they will do by retracing some of the source material for their successful reportage into Eliot Spitzer's smarminess. I hope it pans out for their sake, if not for Elizabeth Edwards's.

Fair, Balanced, All Edwards, All the Time

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing.




Now I would be the last person to say that the Edwards affair is not news. In fact, I've pretty consistently argued that it is news. But this is positively surreal.

I think my favorite part is where Erbe is explaining the political and national security implications of the Russia/Georgia war, as they show endless video of John and Elizabeth Edwards and Rielle Hunter.

The Sound of One Hand Clapping

Appearing at The Blogging Curmudgeon, My Left Wing, and the Independent Bloggers' Alliance.



Dennis Kucinich has accused Hillary Clinton and John Edwards of attempting to rig the election. It appears they are definitely attempting to rig the debate process and attrit their competition.

Representative Dennis J. Kucinich accused two of the major contenders for the Democratic nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, of participating in a “conspiracy to rig the presidential election,” after they apparently suggested that future presidential debates should be pared down to include fewer candidates.

At the end of a forum with the eight Democratic presidential contenders in Detroit on Thursday, Mr. Edwards walked up to Mrs. Clinton, leaned toward her and said: “We should try to have a more serious … smaller group.”

“We’ve got to cut the number…” Mrs. Clinton responded. “I think there was an effort by our campaigns to do that … it got somehow detoured. We’ve got to get back to it,” and added, “our guys should talk.”

Edwards has confirmed the story, but says he doesn't want to eliminate candidates, just break them into smaller groups. But get a load of Hillary's official response:

Mrs. Clinton, who was campaigning in New Hampshire today, declined to be specific about what she meant by her comments on Thursday.

“I think he has some ideas about what he’d like to do,” she said, referring to Mr. Edwards, according to a dispatch from the Associated Press. A Clinton campaign spokesman said he would not comment on “a private conversation” between the two candidates.

In other words this one will be carried out in back-room negotiations, far from the prying eyes of that pesky electorate. And in public she will pass the buck to Edwards.

This is how Hillary deals with the nuisance of competition and democratic process. She cuts the field, like she did when her Democratic challenger in New York state started nipping at her heals. Let us never forget how her big money donor Time Warner eliminated her opponent John Tassini from their televised debate. Their reason for eliminating the up and comer, who was already at 13% in the polls: Not enough money.

Make no mistake. Hillary is as anti-democracy as our current crop of wheeler-dealers. She's determined to win no matter what minor player she has to cut off at the knees. She has no interest in actually letting the voters choose; not before she's eliminated as many of our choices as possible.

Oh well. As Tom Tancredo has proved, a debate of one can be damned entertaining.

Tom Tancredo Debates Himself
at NAACP Sponsered Event

Staring at Train Wrecks

What is it about crazy people that makes them so compelling? But we're all mesmerized. Its hard to turn away. I don't want to rubberneck the mad pile-ups on my television and computer... and yet I do. Anna Nicole Smith. I'm not proud of it, but I had to watch at least a little of the faithful, interminable, press vigil. I cover my eyes and try not look. I peek. She was just such a fascinating, tragic, beautiful, mess. Like Marilyn taken to the nth degree, in every area of her short, sad life.

But now, in keeping with the news cycle, my eyes are drawn by the glint of other shiny psychos: Ann Coulter and the artist formerly known as Armando.

I don't think I'm revealing any state secrets when I say that Armando rose phoenix-like from the ashes of his infamous outing as Big Tent Democrat. (Affectionately known as BTD) It looks like we won't have him to kick around anymore and I find that I'm a little sad. Like Coulter, he's just so fun to hate.

As reported earlier the artist penned a GBCW diary. It seems he bridled when it was suggested by the Great and Powerful Kos, that he should make a greater attempt at civility. Perhaps Kos finally realized that banning people right and left for spitting on the sidewalk, while simultaneously letting the artist spew venom at anyone and everyone, was, how say, incongruous. He as much as admitted that he's been hypocritical as hell. From the thread of a thousand and one nights:

If you want to talk "double standards",

fact is you would've been banned a long time ago if you weren't you.

It's a perfect example of sliding-scale standards -- you are such a stellar writer, thinker, and friend that you survived despite behavior that would've zapped a lesser mortal long ago.

I really wish I could have my cake and eat it too in this case -- keep your writing brilliance without the message board meltdowns.

by kos on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:45:32 PM PST

But then, we've long known that there were special rules for special boyz.

As per Booman it's now official. The artist has been shown the door permanently.

Since this is a meta thread, I guess I'll add that Armando has been banned by Markos from Daily Kos. Armando claims it was done at the behest of DHinMI and Plutonium Page. That's just his opinion. Apparently they suddenly noticed that Armando wasn't civil. That's a fine way to reward his loyalty. I used to get angry emails from Armando anytime anyone so much as thought of criticizing Markos and/or Daily Kos. Armando's flamewars jacked up the pageviews at Daily Kos into the stratosphere. I guess he's no longer convenient.

Armando acted unforgivably in the orange threads for several years. He made many enemies. But that is still no reason to try to do him harm or get him fired. And it's a little late to ban him for it.

Interesting perspective. So flame is good if it's "loyal" flame; like if you're serving as a noble knight for his royal majesty, King Kos. Once again. Special rules for special boyz. Whatever.

So the artist formerly known as Armando will no longer have a comfortable, orange platform for his screeds. And it looks like Ann Coulter has also jumped the shark. It seems high profile conservatives have, to borrow Booman's phrase, "suddenly noticed" that she's vile and offensive.

In the melee triggered by her unfortunate use of the word "faggot" to characterize John Edwards, she has now been dropped by four newspapers. (That's as of this writing. I fully expect that number to climb.)

The Times of Shreveport, Louisiana has become the fourth newspapers [sic] to drop Ann Coulter's column as a direct result of her 'faggot' remark aimed at presidential candidate John Edwards.

"Today we move past the rhetoric and unproductive dialogue offered by Ann Coulter. The Times is dropping her column effective immediately." Times Executive Editor Alan English wrote.

"It is her recent 'joke' about John Edwards being considered a 'faggot' that is the back-breaking straw for a decision we've openly discussed for some time," English added.

The Times joins The Oakland Press of Michigan, The Mountain Press of Sevierville, Tennessee and the Lancaster New Era (Pennsylvania) in dropping Coulter. Others may follow suit.

Coulter has become embarrassing enough to conservatives, that we're beginning to see things like this from within their ranks:

Coulter’s vicious word choice tells the world she care [sic] little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.

Within a day of Coulter’s remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter’s words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?

Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her “raghead” remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?

It's taken them long enough, but it looks like conservatives have finally noticed that Coulter serves liberals/progressives very well by providing fodder. Her screeds are more of a rallying cry to the left than the right. She even makes for fun party games.



What we're witnessing with Coulter is a tipping point. It's all downhill from here. My husband has long had this theory that when Ann Coulter's career started trending inexorably south, she would pose for Playboy. She can't live without the attention, so the theory goes. We'll know soon whether or not my husband's prediction is accurate. But what will Armando pose for? Shudder.

Jefferson Would Be Appalled

Who does God want me to be today?
Blond? Brunette? Shaft?
-- Bo Chrysalis, "Absolutely Fabulous"

Election 2008 is gearing up to be the most sanctimonious, Bible thumping, separation of church and state be damned, election in my memory. And Democrats are the worst offenders. I made the mistake of turning the TV on today, and was assaulted by Hillary's sad rendition of the "southern preacher character" a good ten times. Pulling off that suit was no mean feat, but her flair for color ends about there.



The style-over-substance news channels declared Obama the winner of the dueling preachers contest, in historic Selma, Alabama. And, yes, I do appreciate that in the black community churches serve a much broader social function than they do in the white-bread world I grew up in. But Martin Luther King didn't harp on religion as much as these two do, and he was a preacher.

But the icing on the cake of my day was opening The Huffington Post to be greeted by a photo of a haloed John Edwards scolding the country for failing Jesus.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.

Edwards, in an interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com, said Jesus would be most upset with the selfishness of Americans and the country's willingness to go to war "when it's not necessary."

"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually."

Considering that a healthy percentage of Americans don't have reason to care one whit what Jesus would think, isn't there some other moral arbiter we can reference?

And the sanctimony continues:

Edwards told Kuo he stood by a decision to keep two bloggers on his staff despite their provocative writings criticizing the Catholic Church. Edwards said he also found the writing offensive, but "decided to forgive them and stand by them, knowing there would be potential political consequences for that."

Excuse me. Forgive them?! For what? Exercising their First Amendment rights? He was offended. Fine. But making them "wrong" is a whole 'nother matter.

The bitterest irony is that as our national obsession with religiosity is reaching ahistorical heights, the country has come completely un-moored from its moral underpinnings.

Five years of presidential overreaching and Congressional collaboration continue to exact a high toll in human lives, America’s global reputation and the architecture of democracy. Brutality toward prisoners, and the denial of their human rights, have been institutionalized; unlawful spying on Americans continues; and the courts are being closed to legal challenges of these practices.

I'd like to hear our Presidential front-runners talk a little less about God and little more about how they intend to restore the Constitution. See, you don't need to be religious to know that torture is wrong.

See John Edwards Run

See John Edwards cave to right wing nut jobs. See John Edwards cower. See John Edwards lose my vote.

Well this thing over John Edwards's hiring of bloggers Amanda Marcotte (Pandagon) and Melissa McEwan (Shakespeare's Sister), has really turned into an embarrassing spectacle. There is so much about this that sickens me it's hard to know where to begin.

I was going to hold off on pronouncing my verdict on this whole brouhaha until Edwards made a statement, but since he and his staff have gone to the mattresses, I think I know all I need to know. He's a craven coward. Firstly, because he's allowing himself to be bullied by the likes of Bill Donohue and Michelle Malkin into even considering firing the two bloggers. Secondly, because he can't even be man enough to own up to a decision and make his promised statement.

It looks like the Edwards camp is in total disarray over this and that is a poor comment on how they will handle right wing aggression during the campaign or, god forbid, in office. He's a typical Democratic weathervane politician, and I'm done with the like. I'm with Booman on this. It was an opportunity for him to show some backbone and it turns out he's a slinky.

My disgust with Bill Donohue, Michelle Malkin, and the rest of the right wing noise machine that has stirred up this teapot tempest is fairly self-evident. For these people to accuse Marcotte or McEwan of hate speech doesn't pass the laugh test. As Salon points out, Malkin is associated with genuine hate groups:

Malkin, it should be noted, is hardly innocent of being involved with what ABC News' Terry Moran termed "hate speech" when applied to Marcotte. Malkin has long maintained ties to VDARE, a Web site tagged as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center that has published works by people like Jared Taylor, one of America's leading white supremacists, and Sam Francis, who was fired by the conservative Washington Times for his own white supremacist remarks, given at a conference held by Taylor's organization.

She's also noticeably insane, but that's a subject for a different discussion.

Media Matters has done an admirable job of cataloging Donohue's embarrassing verbal tics. Here's a tiny sample:

• "People don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/9/06]


• Addressing former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) in a press release, Donohue said: "[W]hy didn't you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn't allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?" [10/4/06]


• "Well, look, there are people in Hollywood, not all of them, but there are some people who are nothing more than harlots. They will do anything for the buck. They wouldn't care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/9/06]

As my husband, whose mother was almost a nun, said when he first saw the odious Donohue on "Hardball." "Who is this lunatic? Why is he on television? Why should anyone care what he thinks?"

That Edwards cares enough what these people bloviate about to be driven into total retreat speaks ill of him and of his campaign. But that's the good word from TPM. Of course Edwards is getting it from all sides. The media has jumped onto the non-story of the Catholic baiting bloggers with both feet. And the blogosphere Edwards was attempting to court with this hire, is in full attack mode. We might need a GPS tracker to locate him. I wonder if he left his cell phone on.

Meanwhile, the Edwards camp is under blogospheric siege from some quarters. Chris Bowers of MyDD is threatening not to support Edwards if the two bloggers are fired. He writes:

While there is no way I will support Edwards with Amanda and Melissa...fired, I will immediately become a staunch Edwards supporter if they are not fired. Consider the heinous reporting that is being done in this story, where bigot William Donahue is somehow an authority on what defines hate speech, it is clear that the Edwards campaign will take a lot of flack from outside the netroots if they do not fire Amanda and Melissa. Keeping them on would show a willingness to take risks and stand up to the media in a way that most Democrats just are not, all because the campaign will be doing so in order to defend the netroots.

If someone is willing to stand with us, that should mean something big, and should not go unrewarded.

Oh Mr. Bowers. You are a whore. A staunch Edwards supporter for no reason other than how he treats the netroots? So his creepy position on Iran... that's cool as long he backs bloggers? And this brings me to the final item of disgust in this whole affair. What this whole thing does to the credibility of the blogosphere.

That bloggers, myself included, are not practicing journalism, as in unbiased reporting, is clear to all but the most self-aggrandizing among us. We are at best advocacy journalists or self-appointed op-ed writers. And that's fine. Blogging has allowed average citizens a platform in a very large village square, from which to voice our opinions on the political process, form alliances, and step into greater rolls of civic responsibility. The power of such movements is diminished more than a little, as it becomes clear that our voices and passions can be bought and sold by political campaigns or anything else. At that point we aren't citizen journalists. We're publicists.

As skippy said in a post on this issue:

warning to bloggers: don't ever take a stand if you want to work for a candidate

If a blogger is doing his self-appointed job, he is probably taking a lot of stands that would come back to haunt him in the political arena. If a blogger isn't standing on principle and ruffling feathers, what the hell is he doing? There has been a fair bit of speculation that the reason Kos dissed the bulk of his blogroll, is that many of those bloggers aren't diehard supporters of the "my Democrat right or wrong" school of thought. And let's face it, all Kos is interested in at this point is positioning himself in the Democratic Party machine. That was obvious a long time ago, and it was the death knell for any credibility he had as an independent blogger in my opinion. As I've said before, the Democratic Party isn't courting bloggers because it wants to incorporate our issues and our voices into its vision. It's trying to buy our votes and manufacture consent. John Edwards will get neither from me.

Update: It appears that Mr. Edwards has issued a statement and that the bloggers jobs with his campaign are safe for now. This, even though he is "personally offended" by their religious commentary. Too little too late, imho. I don't care for the way the Edwards camp has handled this. His "fair shake" smacks of Donald Trump. And if he's going to let the wingnuts rock him back on his heels with their baseless attacks, it reads to me like a lack of character and conviction. His behavior leads me to believe that if he wasn't at risk of losing the bulk of the left wing blogosphere, he would have caved.