The Wrong End of the Pen

"The National Enquirer? THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER??? Really, Harris. Get a
grip." - Mike Plaisted, comment left on recent post discussing the John Edwards affair.

Well, now that CBS has picked up this dated story ... on a Friday afternoon, on the eve of the Olympics, and only because Sen. Edwards called them up ... I guess that, maybe, lefties sort of have to believe it.

Maybe.

If lefties would have shown this much restraint when the Enquirer broke the story on Rush Limbaugh and his drug abuse, maybe I could look past their insipid denial, their head-in-the-sand moral subjectiveness.

But I can't.

We live in an age in which the MSM has chosen sides, and in doing so have left the door open for pig papers like The National Enquirer to do their jobs. Fine, but as I responded to Mr. Plaisted in my Value Shift post: Truth is truth, even if in the mouth of swine.

Isn't that right, Wilbur?

The story was out there but the MSM chose not to investigate because being a lying, two-timing Democrat means never having to be scrutinized by the press.

"The National Enquirer? THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER???" Yeah, The National Enquirer because the New York Times was too busy printing stories of phantom affairs involving Senator McCain to pick up on the real scandal laying at their feet.

Oink.

 

Comments

[BipolarNation.com]

National Enquirer - 1
New York Times - 0

[Mike Plaisted]

Yeah, sure, let's just shift over the the Enquirer for our news, shall we? How about this one? http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63426. Yep, Bush was boozing after Katrina, alright -- it says it right here. My favorite is poor Laura: His worried wife yelled at him: "Stop, George."

Didn't exactly hear you clucking about that one, James.

Even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while. The MSM didn't ignore it -- many sought to confirm it and couldn't. I'm betting Edwards had to admit it now because a real news organization was about to confirm.

This opens up all kinds of possibilities for news stories, doesn't it? Where is the Weekly World News when you need it? Here's a headline that's hard to resist from its website: Romney Stalks Batboy! Harris! Get on it, man!

The point is, only a fool would take the Enquirer as its only source. Which I think was my point. You play the role all too well.

[James T]

No you didn't hear me clucking about that one Mike because I am not an avid reader of the pig paper... but it sure looks like you are!

Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle... ahh you get the point.

You do get the point... don't you?

[Mike Plaisted]

Pig paper? I thought we were supposed to accept it with Great Authority.

You don't read the Enquirer? Then how did you find?...no, wait, I know. The Edwards story came in your morning packet of talking points that you graciously agree to diseminate for the RNC.

Don't you get sick of being a shill for their agenda? Don't you want to get out and do something original for a change?

So, now that you know about the Drunken Bush story, I'd like to know what you think about your boy falling off the wagon and sucking bourbon while his poor wife yells at him in the White House. I mean, you know it's true don't you? It was in the Enquirer, after all...

Oh, and the anti-Bush MSM was all over that one too, weren't they? They weren't? James! Your talking points are showing!

[Tom McMahon]

From Kaus: The Progression Of Left-Wing Talking Points For A Democratic Party Sex-Scandal

1. Too horrible and shocking; it can't possibly be true;

2. It's not true;

3. You can't prove it's true;

4. Why are you trying to prove it's true?

5. It's disgusting that you've proved it's true;

6. What's the big deal anyway?

Didn't we all go through this about 10 years ago?

[BipolarNation.com]

Just because it's from the National Enquirer doesn't make everything they say right, nor does the New York Times get everything wrong.

But this really was, from the beginning, a credible story. Anyone could see that. And news outlets refused to run with it.

[Mike Plaisted]

BiPol: "Anyone could see that." Anyone who wanted to, that is.

Tom: No, I think you're talking about the right wing and Larry Craig.

[BipolarNation.com]

Anyone who wanted to see what turned out to be true? Yeah, I guess so.

[Roland Melnick]

@Mike Plaisted, I challenge you to take on us "cowardly conservatives" without using your favorite crutch: the "talking points" accusation. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they receive a daily download from the Party Politik (maybe you do, but I do not). The way you incessantly harp on that makes you sound like a fringe kook conspiracy theorist.

But I digress...the point you so obviously missed is that it's a sad day when a "pig paper" breaks a story that the rest of the media cannot (your view) or will not (JT's view).

Your "blind squirrel" comment is also way off the mark. The Enquirer did not blindly trip over the story, but instead did a lot of work to get it. Try as you may to obscure the lesson here, the reality is that the NYT (or any other mainstream media outlet) didn't break the story.

Are we to believe that with all its massive resources it just couldn't confirm it? Or is it far more likely that they chose not to run with it and only did so after someone else broke it? Like it or not, allegations of left-wing media bias are born from situations like this, and deservedly so.