

GQ on the National Enquirer and their attempt to win the Pulitzer  - aresant
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201006/national-enquirer?printable=true

======
patio11
The National Enquirer didn't really scoop the entire mainstream media on the
affair. It was an open secret in the Edwards campaign, and then in almost
every major newsroom. Mickey Kaus, over at Slate, was alluding to it for
practically a year in his column. The National Enquirer just beat everyone to,
you know, publishing about it. (Kaus got the information on double super
secret squirrel mainstream media background: i.e. picking up the Rolodex,
calling somebody who would know, and promising not to tell anybody about it.)

For general background, see
[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/11/politics/washingto...](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/11/politics/washingtonpost/main4338457.shtml)

There are a bunch of reasons for that. Edwards' wife was solidly behind him,
and the media likes her (and Edwards, for that matter). One reason is that she
had cancer. That is not the only reason. _whistles_

There was also a shortage of resources, since there was a political unknown
out of Alaska who came out of left field and prompted the New York Times alone
to have over a dozen staffers in Wasilla interviewing everyone who remembered
a mayoral election in a town of 3,000 people ten years ago.

Plus, the mainstream media considers the sexual habits of a particular kind of
politician (you know, Clintons, Kennedys, Edwards, do I have to hum any more
bars for you) to be outside the scope of their purview unless the noise has
gotten so deafening that not covering of them would itself be newsworthy.

------
JacobAldridge
Meta thanks for submitting the full page / print view link!

