John Edwards’ stunning admission Friday that he indeed had an extramarital affair ignited a hearty round of told-you-so’s from readers.
They were happy to remind me that in this column last week I had supported The News & Observer’s restrained coverage of the story first published in The National Enquirer. I suggested that ongoing coverage be tempered by the fact that Edwards “is now, after all, a private figure, and there’s a point where examining his sex life doesn’t serve a public interest and risks turning a respectable newspaper into ‘The News and Enquirer.’ ”
Since then, The N&O ran two front-page stories that kept the story alive but did not shed new light on whether the allegations were true. A story Thursday assessed the effect of the allegations on Edwards’ possible role at the Democratic National Convention. On Friday, the paper ran a story asking experts whether pictures of Edwards and a baby in the National Enquirer were genuine.
The column last week drew a lot of response from readers as to whether The N&O was responsible in its coverage. Following are their comments, some of which came in after Edwards’ admission, but most before Friday.
* “Who is unreliable now?” — CHRISTIE HAAS, Raleigh.
* “Now that Edwards has admitted the affair, you have a ‘legitimate news story’ (albeit one I care about not one whit). But to run stories in the newspaper based on National Enquirer stories is irresponsible journalism. Since The N&O … clearly considers this story important, it should have been investigated and reported independent of whatever was published in the Enquirer. But I could not care less about this kind of ‘story.’ It’s a personal matter and insignificant otherwise.” — DEBRA BELLER, Chapel Hill.
* “Which is more dangerous? A tabloid like the National Enquirer that thrives on sensationalism or a newspaper like The N&O that manages — or mismanages –the news to further a political agenda? Right now, I’m going to pay more attention to the Enquirer and look to The N&O for sports scores, with hopeful assurance your political agenda will be kept out of that section.” — JOHN FEAGANS, Rocky Mount.
* “The N&O owes it to its readers to investigate a story and report the findings to its readers, in a factual manner and not just pick and choose what you would like to report based on left-wing talking points.” — JEFF SCHICK, Raleigh.
* “I’d rather see you investigating rising oil prices than spend your money investigating the private life of John Edwards.” — EVIE HENDERSON, Oriental.
* “The N&O quite enthusiastically covered John Edwards quite closely during his run for office and his subsequent consideration for VP. I also wondered, since the baby story surfaced, why The N&O was not enthusiastically covering that story. I commend your paper for wanting to make sure this ‘tabloid story’ was true before giving it the proper coverage. That being said, I only wish that you and the other ‘mainstream media’ outlets would show the same restraint when the candidate has an ‘R’ next to his name.” — ED HOBBS, Holly Springs.
* “I agree 100 percent with your, and the N&O’s, position with regard to the story (?) in the National Enquirer.” — BILL LYNCH, Raleigh.
* “If Edwards is a simple private citizen, then I expect no more stories of him, his wife, or his scholarships. The N&O has always done everything it can to prop him up as a ‘defender of the people,’ and relegated negative articles of him to the back pages.” — MARC HAAKENSON, Raleigh.
* “He is not a private figure. He is very much a public one as long as he makes himself available for public office, which he does at every opportunity. Private, personal decisions among politicians give important insight into their decision-making processes and their character.” — ROB DAWKINS, Wendell.
* “Thanks so much for your piece addressing ‘the elephant in the room,’ i.e., the John Edwards rumor mill. Although it cannot be ignored, your treatment of the story was a viewpoint well taken and I appreciate the manner in which you and the N&O have handled it. I am not an Edwards fan, but out of concern for his family, hope that present standards prevail.” — BETH MORRISON MOYE, Maury.
* “(I)f you think he is a private person, you really are legally and otherwise in another world. And that forms the reason for covering all of this, whatever it turns out to be, in the first place. We have a right to know as much about candidates for public office, prospectively and retrospectively, as we can. It helps all of us make judgments for November and beyond … especially when that word “judgment” is so critical to how I, for one, will be picking candidates in a few months.” — TERRY MAGUIRE, Chapel Hill.
* “Bias in the press is way of life for conservative/libertarians such as myself. But this story is about one of our own. A man who had everything but wanted more. If the story is true, then he is a liar and a cheat. If it is false, he has been greatly wronged. It is up to the press to find out which one and report it. Ignoring the allegations in the age of the Internet only makes you people look like hacks.” — GREG DAIL.
* “You’re caught in a Catch-22 situation here: damned if you do and damned if you don’t. The choice to publish something that is awash in the popular culture (Internet, tabloids, etc.) or remain mum is not an easy one to make. I would like to think that most people will applaud the fact that you stepped up to the plate to discuss your organization’s reasoning as to why you print or don’t print any given story.” — WAYNE DEDRICK, Raleigh.
