Just Say No
Nancy Reagan started a campaign in the 1980's as First Lady of "Just Say No." Just say no meant lots of things but most especially practicing abstinence and not engaging in smoking marijuana or other recreational (as well as narcotic) drugs.
Just say no can mean other things too. It can mean that the 4th Estate will say no in publishing a story without solid evidence. The National Enquirer, who is now being aided and abetted by Faux Noise, reported that John Edwards was seen in the Beverly Hills Hilton visiting Rielle Hunter, which they claim is his mistress and the mother of an illegitimate offspring. No evidence has linked them ever on this. And I don't think the onus is on Edwards to prove this. To me, it is Rielle Hunter's problem, since obviously she was paid to be in the tabloid and on ExtraTV, another gossip channel in which guests, sometimes of ill-repute, are paid to be on the show.
I find this odd that no pictures have appeared. The NE claims there is a video. I have a feeling this will be trumped up too. I might add that I find it odd that Edwards would have been driven anywhere in a foreign car; he prefers to ride in and owns American made cars.
The AP, NYT, and other newswires have not reported anything. It is rumored that the LAT Blog editor has ordered his blog columnists not to blog about it either. For these reasons, the News-Record of Greensboro, which hasn't always been kind to John Edwards, has chosen not to report it either since there is no credible evidence such as photos, or a credible witness either, other than some security guard who didn't recognize Edwards at first either until he was hounded and likely goaded into a statement after being shown a picture of Edwards. If he didn't recognize Edwards right away, seems to me this is all balderdash.
This is now between John and Elizabeth to sort out. It is not for me to judge him on what happened without evidence. I give John the benefit of the doubt. I do not give Rielle Hunter that same benefit because this is twice this has story has occurred in 8 months and I wonder if she is a spurned person because she came on to him and he said no, that they are friends (if that strong of a relationship). If indeed John came to visit her for whatever reason, she should have said no (or her surrogates thereof) to The National Enquirer and ExtraTV. It smells to me that this trap of paparazzi of only the National Enquirer seemed to know about a visit--and tons of TV journalists within 2 doors down having a party.
And the News-Record agrees--this is not a credible story. They said no.
Just say no can mean other things too. It can mean that the 4th Estate will say no in publishing a story without solid evidence. The National Enquirer, who is now being aided and abetted by Faux Noise, reported that John Edwards was seen in the Beverly Hills Hilton visiting Rielle Hunter, which they claim is his mistress and the mother of an illegitimate offspring. No evidence has linked them ever on this. And I don't think the onus is on Edwards to prove this. To me, it is Rielle Hunter's problem, since obviously she was paid to be in the tabloid and on ExtraTV, another gossip channel in which guests, sometimes of ill-repute, are paid to be on the show.
I find this odd that no pictures have appeared. The NE claims there is a video. I have a feeling this will be trumped up too. I might add that I find it odd that Edwards would have been driven anywhere in a foreign car; he prefers to ride in and owns American made cars.
The AP, NYT, and other newswires have not reported anything. It is rumored that the LAT Blog editor has ordered his blog columnists not to blog about it either. For these reasons, the News-Record of Greensboro, which hasn't always been kind to John Edwards, has chosen not to report it either since there is no credible evidence such as photos, or a credible witness either, other than some security guard who didn't recognize Edwards at first either until he was hounded and likely goaded into a statement after being shown a picture of Edwards. If he didn't recognize Edwards right away, seems to me this is all balderdash.
This is now between John and Elizabeth to sort out. It is not for me to judge him on what happened without evidence. I give John the benefit of the doubt. I do not give Rielle Hunter that same benefit because this is twice this has story has occurred in 8 months and I wonder if she is a spurned person because she came on to him and he said no, that they are friends (if that strong of a relationship). If indeed John came to visit her for whatever reason, she should have said no (or her surrogates thereof) to The National Enquirer and ExtraTV. It smells to me that this trap of paparazzi of only the National Enquirer seemed to know about a visit--and tons of TV journalists within 2 doors down having a party.
And the News-Record agrees--this is not a credible story. They said no.
Labels: benny's world, ethics, John Edwards, journalists, News-Record
posted by benny06 at
Saturday, July 26, 2008
6 Comments:
I hope you are right and don't get disappointed. If this is true the consequences are mind boggling.
By
oklahomagirl, at 7:38 PM
Populism is the elephant and the donkey under the living room carpet. A sizable number of people think that most of the poor are trapped by their circumstances and deserve a hand up ("a hand up, not a hand out" as Edwards says"). An even larger number believe that the Middle Class is worth preserving and that an educated middle class is the main source of energy and creativity in the economy.
Elitists and corporatists may try to discredit John and Elizabeth Edwards in any way possible by spreading bizarre rumors.
John is still in awe of Elizabeth. We all are. It is reverence. Either of them being unfaithful to each other is unthinkable to me. They finish each others' sentences and and greatly respect each other. They don't disrespect anybody. They speak their minds, but always respectfully. They don't even disrespect hecklers--they forgive them for they know not what they do. Most in the media know better than to spread wild rumors having neither foundation nor proof. Publications that function as propaganda organs, more than responsible news organs, may try to spread unfounded rumors to further their own financial or political agenda.
By
oklahomavoter, at 8:33 PM
I'd be careful canonizing politicians. I believed in him and his cause because I believed in the same issues and I believed her.
Would someone explain word verification to me. I don't get it. It drives me crazy. Sometimes I am unable to make out the letters.
By
oklahomagirl, at 11:19 AM
The entire thing is so incredibly ridiculous! Let's see . . . not one person has gone on the record by name to "confirm" any of this garbage. The only statements on the record are the denials by the principals and the previous statements by both the mother and father of the child claiming paternity. (Do they really think a man would risk his own reputation, family, etc. as part of a cover up? I don't know a single man who would do so.)
For heaven's sake, the National Enquirer! The same rag that ran garbage about male members of Elizabeth Smart's (the young girl kidnapped in Utah) family being involved in a gay sex ring. When the family sues, the NE settled basically saying they were sorry for any embarassment caused but the information provided to them (should have said the info they bought)was inaccurate. Human decency and compassion for all the family had been through should have prevented them from publishing a word of filth. Of course, they'd rather publish hoping they don't get sued but if they do, the quietly settle and many people never know how blatantly they lied.
By
indyvoter, at 6:31 PM
You must not know any Dr's.
By
oklahomagirl, at 12:16 PM
Not that this will be widely disseminated but look at: http://bloggasm.com/la-times-blog-editor-tony-pierce-responds-to-criticism-about-national-enquirer-story
Here's the important part to note:
"He said that to his knowledge the LA Times reporters hadn’t found any additional information and expressed some skepticism of the National Enquirer story’s authenticity."
By
indyvoter, at 3:21 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home