News University | Today's most popular courses on NewsU, Poynter's e-learning site for journalists. |
| |
Webinars | Our online classroom is just a click away. Learn more. | |
|
|
 
Romenesko
Latest News
Reporting
& Writing
Ethics &
Diversity
Leadership
& Business
Visual
Journalism
Online &
Technology
TV &
Radio
Journalism
Education
|
Article Feedback
View all Romenesko feedback
N&O ombud worries about where Edwards coverage goes from here
(Read the Article)
Post Feedback |
Feedback Guidelines |
Report Feedback Abuse
Page 1 of 1
Proof
Posted by
Jennifer Foster
8/6/2008 2:45:03 PM
So much for the Enquirer not having any photos of the Edwards encounter and not running it in the print edition: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/...
So much for the Enquirer not having any photos of the Edwards encounter and not running it in the print edition: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/exclusive_john_edwards_love_child_photos/celebrity/65258
Paul, as for your statements, I suspect you are a Bush opponent. If so, I would also think that you would understand how a man's personal integrity -- or lack thereof -- affects his performance on the job and the consequences of that performance to the country. I don't care about John Edwards' sex life. I care about John Edwards' integrity.
I dispute that the public doesn't have respect for journalism. But their respect, whatever it may be, is diminished when journalists don't do their jobs -- when they fail to report "crooked deals (affecting) thousands of lives," when they allow themselves to be "used to justify and push the country into an unnecessary war" -- and when they stubbornly refuse to report the obvious truth, as in this case with Edwards.
Ted, I hope you were able to finally get a copy of the Enquirer ... You and the rest of the N&O management can study it and try to figure out how to catch up with them on this story.
sad state of journalism
Posted by
Paul Guinnessy
8/5/2008 4:41:51 PM
Yes, of course we should dig around in the private sex lives of our colleagues, because we learn so much about how they would deal...
Yes, of course we should dig around in the private sex lives of our colleagues, because we learn so much about how they would deal with matters of state. If you're a womanizer you must be a terrible president, like John F Kennedy, FDR, or Clinton.
You know, reading comments on why we must dig around whether Edwards cheated on his marriage, really depress me.
We've just had the fourth estate used to justify and push the country into an unnecessary war, we've got crooked deals effecting thousands of lives going unreported, and the National Enquirer being used as a role model.
No wonder the public hasn't got any respect for journalism.
Something's fishy about this!
Posted by
Jeffrey Knight
8/5/2008 7:12:32 AM
The birth certificate lists the mother's name but not the father's? How can we be sure Edwards' name belongs on that line? It's a matter...
The birth certificate lists the mother's name but not the father's? How can we be sure Edwards' name belongs on that line? It's a matter of celebrity. Now, I think it's swiftboating at its ugliest. Does the mother want notoriety or money? I honestly don't believe she's standing on principle.
Simple solution to Edwards dilemma
Posted by
Jennifer Foster
8/4/2008 1:05:24 PM
Ted,
John Edwards is no private figure. He is a former senator and vice presidential candidate who still seeks out the limelight -- he was...
Ted,
John Edwards is no private figure. He is a former senator and vice presidential candidate who still seeks out the limelight -- he was in LA that day for an event with the mayor. Seven months ago, he was running for president. Private figure? About as much as Al Gore, who also uses his notoriety to gain publicity for their purposes.
Regarding the veracity of the Enquirer's allegations, it's easy enough for Edwards to sue the Enquirer if what they said about him isn't true. He's a lawyer; goodness knows, he knows how to file a lawsuit.
And as for the Enquirer as a source of news, don't give yourself airs. The Enquirer's editor explained how the Enquirer was able to get this story before any of the MSM -- including Edwards' hometown paper. Their dirty tabloid trick, according to their editor? "We stayed on the story. We did it the old-fashioned way, with lots of legwork. We did what the major news organizations used to do: we knocked on doors, ran down leads and talked to people ... I think with all of the cutbacks the other news organizations has suffered, many of them may not have had the man-power or the resources to do what we did. It was a major commitment on our part to continue and stay on the story."
This story isn't important because of what it says about Edwards' sex life. It's important because of what it says about Edwards as a man.
You say the N&O let it go because this controversy makes it less likely that Edwards will be VP. If that's true, then it's newsworthy on its own. Or is it your position that North Carolinians don't deserve to know why one of their own is out of the veepstakes?
The days of the mainstream press as gatekeeper are over. And, given that it takes the National Enquirer to break a story like this about the credibility of a potential vice presidential candidate, it isn't a minute too soon.
More here: http://www.gulfeast.com/index.php/OAN_Political_Blog/comments/what_edwards_v_enquirer_means_for_journalism
Page 1 of 1
View all Romenesko feedback
|
|
