I’m completely turned off at the coverage of John Edwards’ affair. If the media wanted to cover the affair during the presidential race, then fine. Fair game. But the media didn’t cover it. I wonder if they didn’t cover it in part to protect another candidate, known for having a philandering husband. I don’t agree that Hillary Clinton would have wanted this to come out at the time. I think she would have been expected to make a statement, and what’s she going to say? Some generic line about praying?
Now members of the media say they didn’t cover it because they liked and respected Mrs. Edwards. Because Mrs. Edwards was terminally ill, and they didn’t want to make her last days any worse. Okay, so what has changed? Is Mrs. Edwards no longer likable or respectable? Isn’t she dying anymore? What’s changed?
Some professional journalists actually knew Ms. Hunter, but they didn’t pick up the phone to ask her anything.
They blame Mrs. Edwards for their refusal to do their job as they saw it. They say she worked the sympathy angle. Well, I believe that, I’m just not mad about it. It’s not her fault that you fell for it. She has a certain investment in her husband, and her children. You don’t get to vilify a woman for trying to protect her children, not even a dying woman.
You don’t get to get on some high horse and proclaim nobody has a right to lie to their own children. They are plenty of lousy parents all over this country, people putting their children in the trunks of cars, turning them on to drugs, beating them up, and you’re going to spend your moral outrage on this?
I’m going to call you on it. To report on this now, is to hit after the game is over, and the players have left the field.
These are private citizens, and they’re in a rotten position, one that I don’t presume to understand. I’m told he’s going to admit paternity, I see no reason for him to do that. The public isn’t owed any explanation. Whatever adjustments they make, it’s going to be messy, it’s going to be painful. Leave them to it.
