The National Enquirer Earns Some Respect

[cali]

By STEPHANIE CLIFFORD
Published: March 7, 2010

The call came into The National Enquirer’s Los Angeles tip line — the kind advertised in the supermarket tabloid with the promise “We’ll Pay Big for Your Celebrity Gossip” — in late September 2007. The message was that a woman named Rielle Hunter had been hinting at an affair with John Edwards, then a candidate for president.

Within an hour, the tip was on the desk of Barry Levine, The Enquirer’s executive editor in New York. His readers didn’t care about politics for politics’ sake, not as long as there were rocky Hollywood marriages to be covered and celebrity cellulite photos to be snapped. But Mr. Levine was intrigued when he looked up Mr. Edwards on Google and found a poll saying that the candidate and his wife, Elizabeth, had one of the most admired marriages of all the candidates.

That meant Mr. Edwards was on a pedestal, and revelations of an affair could knock him off it — in line with The Enquirer’s mission. “It still shows the reader that wealthy people, rich people, people who they may admire — when you take away the money, have the same types of problems that they have in real life,” he said.

Pulling together reporters to dig into the rumor, Mr. Levine began something that once seemed unthinkable: not only the downfall of a presidential candidate with a meticulous image, but, for the sensational tabloid, something resembling respectability.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/business/media/08enquirer.html

[RandomThoughts]

1. Thats laughable.

Edwards was being smeared by the media for years, what was the biggest story on Edwards.

In 2004 a CNN article said if he wanted to run in 2008 he had to cozy up to the status quo. Its not like they plan character attacks because events occur, they can make something up if they want, like a hair cut.

To say his affair, although not the best decision, is what derails him, is wrong. It is either his own attitudes and thoughts, or how they are presented by filters. Depending on how a person views things.

His hair cut costing 400 dollars LOL how many hours of coverage did that get, a smear on him, because he was not going along with status quo.

Even that book Game Change was just a faction hit book on the liberal left, with a drop date to drown out a congressional hearing about banking, and ran up on every TV news channel as some big insight. But what did they talk about, gossipy things. The only thing I wonder about Game Change is if the authors have signed their documents that give them access.

For the Enquirer to rewrite some story about being the one to out Edwards image, is ridiculous, since he was, like many non corporate types, smeared by the media before then.

It is true he is not perfect, and has character flaws like all people do. And there are some other issues there, so I am not saying he is the best pick for something, but saying he had a meticulous image until his affair is to erase the smears they ran until they found something that would stick well.

Any person can be smeared, it is when news is looked at without perspective that people get manipulated by propaganda.

[elocs]

2. Edwards is not even close to being perfect.

Has character flaws like all people do? His character flaws are far, far beyond what "all people" have. Thank god he never got the nomination because McCain would be president now.

Whatever was brought down on Edwards was his own fault and nobody else's. I don't buy that people were manipulated by propaganda. Edwards got what he deserved but so many people who supported him got what they did not deserve.

[RandomThoughts]

4. By saying he has flaws, I was not saying he has less or more.

I agree he has issues, my point is that was not what the news stories were about.

He has character flaws, everyone has character flaws, he has more flaws then some people and less then others.

I was saying it to skip over the how bad or how good is Edwards debate, since that was not the point of my comment.



Propaganda = hair cut story.

Regardless if he was not the right candidate, it does not change the smears that were put up about him. Before they found the hunter affair one.


If it was about his character flaws, why didn't they talk about them. Unless you translate hair story into a comment on some flaw regarding areas that magnifies.

[karynnj]

19. That story stuck because it was so contrary to the image he was running on

The fact was it was true - and the campaign explained it reasonably well. It cost that much for the stylist to meet Edwards and cut his hair at Edwards' convenience. This was a reasonable argument, except the Edwardses had been speaking of shopping at Target and eating at Wendy's. Paying big bucks for a haircut by a particular stylist was contrary to that image.

Now, in 2003, there was a similar story, but that is one where you can blame the media - because it was untrue. In Harris's book, he spoke with great praise of Drudge taking a non-story that Kerry got a $75 hair cut in DC and wrote a fictional story that Kerry spent $1000 getting his hair styled, colored, and high lighted, completely with made up quotes on how fussy he is about his hair. (Now, I have seen Kerry, his hair is completely silver - the play of lights and shadows make it look otherwise. The only thing unusual is that he has very thick hair.) In 2003, the Kerry people and the salon quickly got the truth out.

Harris claims the story worked as it labeled Kerry as vain, but in fact, it had little impact on the primaries and got little coverage. My guess is that this was not only because it was not true, it was because Kerry spending $75 for a hair cut in DC was nothing out of the expected for him - and might have actually been less expensive than expected. With Edwards, his image would have led people to think he might have simply walked into an Iowa barbershop recommended by his local people and emerged with shorter hair.

The problem was that there were a series of little things that chipped away from his narrative. In addition, once that happened, there were opposing narratives - on trial lawyers in general and on Edwards having re-invented himself from the 2003/2004 Edwards. The one thing for many that held his narrative together was Elizabeth and their marriage.

[tonysam]

20. The trashing of JRE is way overboard and downright malicious

and even evil.

He was never put on a pedestal, unlike Obama, who was called a "rock star" and every other thing which cleverly masked his neoliberal tendencies.

I am sick and tired of reading shit about this shit.

[karynnj]

21. You completely missed 2004

Edwards was called a "rock star" and he was called charismatic and energetic. He and Elizabeth were praised for their long time, strong, perfect marriage. This was both in the primaries and when Kerry selected him - and the main story for much of the media was that Edwards was the star of the ticket. This in spite of Kerry winning the primaries very very easily and being by far the stronger member of that ticket (as he should have been).

In 2007/2008, the media did show a reluctance to seriously investigate the allegations. There was ample reason for them to do so, but out of respect for Elizabeth they didn't touch it.

[dionysus]

25. if you're that upset about smoove johnny, this will ease the pain;

[sendero]

3. I disagree...

... with just about everything you said.

When the Enquirer broke this story, the hue and cry on this board was "it's a tabloid, it's all made up".

I knew then that they did not print anything they could not prove and I said " wait and see".

And the idea that this single event didn't in fact take down Edwards is ludicrous. It did, and it still is.

[RandomThoughts]

5. He had already dropped out of the Presidential race when the story hit the media.

And he was playing some negotiations for endorsement of Clinton or Obama after dropping out of primary. So after he was out of the race, someone thought he might have some pull.

I think the story broke in July, Edwards dropped out of the race in Jan. And he was already behind in the primary.

So unless you are saying they used the threat of running the story to get him to drop out, then that story has nothing to do with him leaving the Presidential primary.


You could say he was told to drop out or they would run the story. But you can't say the running of the story hurt his election chances, since he was out of the election for 5 months already when the story was published.


His actions and the story effect his future career, along with the Game Change hits, but it did not effect his presidential run.

[cali]

7. That story is all about why he dropped out

to deny that is simply delusional.

[RandomThoughts]

14. Can you explain more.

Are you saying the Enquirer story made him drop out, when it was discussed months after he dropped out, and when he dropped out after not wining 3 state primaries? From memory Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were all loses for him.

(checking google again)

Ok the google search now shows there were three stories,(according to National Enquire Web Site) one in Oct one in Dec , and a third one in July. Although the news did not cover the first one, and neither candidate running against him mentioned it in the campaigns. So it should not have effected the votes he got. I heard very little discussion about it, but was in different areas in December.

So here is my point, he may have dropped out when behind after three primaries. and he was not behind because of the Enquirer story, since it was not in the news that was shown in my area. If it was discussed in other areas you could have a point, if it was discussed among the early primary states voters.

So I would say the story did not knock him out of the race, and using a claim like delusional as an argument is really not defending your point of view, nor disputing my comments. However I added the arguments you could have used in your post instead of just a comment like delusional.

[KittyWampus]

17. your time line is totally wrong. Edwards dropped out because he lost primaries big time.

As the DU'er you slammed as delusional points out- you can claim Edwards was threatened secretly by the National Enquirer the story would run. But that's a big claim and still doesn't admit Edwards had already lost primaries soundly months before the NE broke the story.

In fact, a lot of DU'ers thought the NE story was a mute point BECAUSE Edwards had already lost and was out of politics.

[karynnj]

22. Not the first time - it was out in mid 2007 - and it was just denied then

[sendero]

26. I'm talking about..

... ending any future political ambitions. I agree, that campaign was done.

[cali]

6. what a brimming pant load

what's laughable is that the press was particularly unfair to little johnny hedgefund.

[benlurkin]

8. The LA Times sat on this story

They knew it and refused to print what they knew, even after Edwards dropped out. Ridiculous to say thst he was treated unfairly.

To carry on an affair while your wife of 30 years is dying of incurable cancer is far worse than having "issues".

John Edwards is trash.

[RandomThoughts]

16. That is between him and his wife, so I do not think on that.

But I do agree it was not a good thing to do while in a campaign considering how people would react. I also understand it can be an indication of character that can effect views of how he could chose to act if in office.

[RandomThoughts]

15. You seem to think my comment is about Edwards.

My point is some in the media have a track record of creating and maintaining smears against people that go against what some people think the system should be. I could have written the same post about the Dean Scream smear of 2004

Your dislike of Edwards is not disputed, nor does it have anything to do with my point.

[karynnj]

23. The Dean scream followed a very unexpectedly bad showing in Iowa

He was considered to be the front runner - even as polls showed Kerry pulling ahead in Iowa. Those polls got almost no national press as they didn't fit the media's "story.

Imagine there were no Dean scream, what would the coverage have been that evening and the following days. You would still have the exuberant Kerry victory speech, surrounded by his veterans and the firemen who supported him. You also would still have had the Gephardt pullout. But, there would have also been coverage on Dean and it would have been a cut and paste of the worst moments in the Iowa campaign - that is what happens in the media. You would have seen replays of Dean telling the elderly heckler to "sit down" and you would have had man on the street interviews speaking of how the orange hatted Dean supporters weren't from around here. (Ignoring that many of the strongest Kerry supporters were MA veterans who had supported him since the 1980s, or in some cases 1970s along with many low MA level officials.)

There is no reason to expect that NH would have been different. Dean was already below his highs, having lost support to Clark, who then lost it to undecided or Kerry pre-Iowa. Kerry was less than 10 points behind, was favorably regarded by many of the undecideds who didn't think he was in the running - with the national media mostly questioning if he would pull out after Iowa or after NH. Kerry still would have received the momentum boost - and Dean because he did far below expectations would lose some who were with him because he was winning.

[karynnj]

18. Edwards was a media favorite in 2004

In particular, after NH leading into the first multi -state day, when DE, SC, NM, AZ, ND, MO and OK were at stake, there were articles about the "sunny" John Edwards. Now why this timing - thing of 1992. Kerry had won both Iowa and NH, but Edwards had done far better than expected in Iowa. Dean was opting not to contest these states, focusing his resources on later states. Why did Dean make that choice? It is clear that those were, for the most part, not the best states for a New Englander.

Edwards was pushed by the media essentially as the "anybody but John Kerry". You might also note that the media did not have a rush of positive Kerry stories after his two wins - something that nearly always happens. This was the moment when Edwards could have taken the lead - Kerry instead won 5 of the seven contests, with Clark and Edwards getting one each. CNN's theme on their web site was that it was a big victory for Kerry and a small one for Edwards, making him Kerry's main competitor. In truth, this was the point when it was clear that, unless something major happened, Kerry was the candidate.

Then after he lost, the media pushed like mad for him to be VP. When Kerry picked him, the media then treated us to countless interviews, where Kerry, who SOUNDLY beat Edwards, was asked, whether he feared that Edwards would out shine him or whether he thought picking Edwards would cause Edwards' energy or charisma to rub off on him.

Even in 2005, the Edwardses got incredibly positive coverage - that did not change until Edwards switched to running a negative campaign. This was not the Edwards they loved.

[NNN0LHI]

9. Odd that they never reported about Strom Thurmond's raping his 15-year old maid?

For over 50 years they hid that. Produced a child too. I wonder why they never reported on that? He ran for president and everything.

Don

[benlurkin]

10. They were right about Jesse Jackson's love child, too

Nobody touched that story until it came out in the Enquirer. It takes so much to beleive them because of the out right lies they have told but it makes you think twice when they print the story that other "media" refuses to print.

[karynnj]

24. Totally different time period and

as it happened long before he was in politics it was likely unknown to the SC press.

You might better ask whay they didn't cover JFK's affairs - and the answer would be the same.

[spanone]

11. not with me

[cornermouse]

12. Here's the thing about the National Enquirer and its "credibility"

Go to http://www.nationalenquirer.com and do a search for Obama. Then tell me again how credible you think they are.

[11 Bravo]

13. Yeah, ever since they went to two-ply, I've noticed much less chafing.