Looking back, our coverage of John Edwards’ extramarital affair was on the mark, given what we knew and when we knew it.
In October, The National Enquirer, citing an anonymous source, said former U.S. Sen. Edwards had an affair with an unnamed former campaign worker.
Asked about the report while campaigning for president, Edwards denied the allegations.
Several blogs identified the woman as Rielle Hunter, a filmmaker who had worked for the Edwards campaign. Hunter released a statement denying an affair with Edwards.
We reported the denials in a seven-paragraph story on newsobserver.com.
We did not publish that report in the print paper. Reasonable people can disagree about whether we should have.
We report many items online that never make it into print. The report was sketchy, apparently from a single, anonymous source. It did not name the woman and was disputed by Edwards and Hunter. We decided it didn’t make the cut for the print paper.
Still, we treated the Enquirer report seriously. Working with our colleagues at The Charlotte Observer, we quickly sent a reporter to New York, where Hunter then lived, to report on the allegations. We also worked the story from here.
We learned biographical information about Hunter but were unable to interview Hunter or to confirm the affair. So we did not publish a story.
In December, The Enquirer reported that Hunter was pregnant and had moved to a gated community in Chapel Hill. It also reported that Andrew Young, an Edwards aide, and Hunter said Young was the father of her baby.
We continued reporting and learned some information about Young. But we still were unable to establish that Edwards had an affair with Hunter, and we did not publish a story.
Then, a few weeks ago, The Enquirer reported that Edwards had met with Hunter in a room at a Beverly Hills hotel and that after the meeting, Enquirer reporters had confronted him in the hotel. Curiously, The Enquirer did not publish a photo of their reporters confronting Edwards.
But there was evidence of a confrontation. We sent an N&O reporter to California to confirm the confrontation and to interview Young and Hunter, who were living separately in Santa Barbara. We were unable to confirm the confrontation or to interview Hunter or Young. At one point, our Lorenzo Perez was chased out of Young’s neighborhood by sheriff’s deputies.
We wanted to give Edwards a chance to respond to the allegations but we could not reach him.
That wasn’t unusual. We’ve had a poor relationship with Edwards and his top staffers for years.
Among other things, they were unhappy about our stories about his new house outside Chapel Hill, his expensive haircuts and his change in political philosophy from one presidential campaign to another.
Finally, The Observer’s Lisa Zagaroli cornered Edwards on July 30 after he gave a speech in Washington and tried to dodge reporters. Edwards declined comment.
That was news. We’d given Edwards a chance to set the record straight and he declined to do so. In addition, he had done all that he could to avoid reporters, exiting though a side area used by kitchen staff. Clearly, something was wrong.
Edwards dropped out of the presidential race in January.
However, he kept a high public profile, travelling the country, making speeches. If Barack Obama were elected president, Edwards was a strong candidate to play a role in an Obama administration. In my eyes, that made his personal conduct still relevant to our readers.
On Thursday, July 31, we published an item in our Under the Dome political column in the print paper about Edwards declining comment. The next day we published a short story inside the paper about how there was no father’s name on the birth certificate for Hunter’s baby.
On Thursday, Aug. 7, we published a front-page story with prominent Democrats saying Edwards needed to address the allegations if he hoped to have a role at the upcoming convention.
The following day, we ran a front-page story in which experts commented on the authenticity of an Enquirer photo that purported to show Edwards with Hunter’s baby.
Later Friday, ABC News reported that Edwards had admitted the affair in an interview.
This was a difficult story to report. Rumors often circulate about politicians having affairs. Unless you can uncover a trail, paper or electronic (as in the case of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick), an affair is difficult to prove if both sides deny it.
The Enquirer is an unusual publication. It pays for information, which gives sources an incentive to lie or exaggerate.
It has broken some big stories. But it also routinely uses anonymous sources who make sensational claims without substantiation. For example, The Enquirer reported in 2005 in “Bush’s Booze Crisis” that President Bush’s drinking problem had returned. We didn’t report those allegations because there wasn’t evidence to support them. We avoid using anonymous sources.
The Enquirer cannot be ignored. But neither can it be trusted.
We needed to verify the hotel allegations, or at least give Edwards a chance to address them, before publishing. We reported aggressively but used restraint when it came to publication.
Some readers think we did too much with this story; others think we did too little.
I think we handled it right.
Our reporting during the last ten months about Hunter and Young did not pay off immediately. But it helped us publish a strong story about Hunter on Saturday and Young on Sunday.
Questions remain about who is the father of Hunter’s baby and whether Edwards knew about payments to Hunter and Young.
We’ll continue reporting.
Comments
final argument against Obama
Sun, 11/09/2008 - 01:36 — RoyArtelo (not verified)Do you think that Obama is going to win because the Republicans have such a bad candidate?
Why did John McCain make his final argument against Obama... coal?
That's his closing argument? William Ayers, Rev. Wright, spreading the wealth, Born Alive, meeting dictators without preconditions, etc. all have to take a back seat so that McCain can go to Colorado and New Mexico to talk about coal? Does this more or less explain why he's going to get his clock cleaned Tuesday?
Please......
Mon, 08/18/2008 - 10:26 — Debrah.....don't bring religion into this.
That's what both the Edwards have done, along with so many other politicians, as a way to cover for the brand of low-rent opportunists that they are.
"The Lord", or whatever moniker you wish to use, had nothing to do with this.
And "the Lord" will have nothing to do with ensuring that it gets cleaned up and reported sufficiently.
coverage
Mon, 08/18/2008 - 09:12 — Forget_not_the_...Okay the N&O was not at the top of their game in initially reporting the Edwards affair--however the multi-page spread last Sunday with editorials from several other newspapers negates the N&O's slow start.
It is easy to slam The National Enquirer but this newspaper is not the same rag we read in the 80's or 90's. Several severe lawasuits has forced this newspaper get its ducks in a row and make sure that what it writes is as credible as People Magazine, or the New York Times.
Frequently, I read articles from assorted new sources and laugh at the mistakes and lies that are being spread. The New York Times recently did an article on Wake County's school system, that I bet many citizens would argue is full of falsehoods and misrepresentations.
Now the N&O can put on its A-game and give us all the details as this affair continues to unfold. There is more here than sex, lies and babies.
John Edwards used the State of NC for his own agenda. He was our US senator and he did NOTHING.
He worked for Poverty Institutes and did NOTHING for people who needed the most help.
John Edwards even spit in the face of our own state newspaper.
N&O this might be your pulitzer.
PS. Children need to learn about the impact of lying, cheating and not following the word of the Lord. John Edwards is not that different from many biblical figures. This is a great teaching op!!!
Come down from the ozone layer.....
Sat, 08/16/2008 - 10:29 — Debrah"The N&O apparently cowers to the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity and devotes too much time to browbeating Democrats because they thin (sic) that the (sic) will not respond."
This bit of laughable distortion.....(did I say "distortion"?).....I should have said total falsehood.....
.......is an attempt to try to intimidate the N&O and steer them from doing some of the most honest reporting they've done in a while.
It's brutally insane to suggest that the N&O follows anything to the right......even a hint of right of center can cause convulsions in Ted Vaden.
The N&O should have OWNED this story.
Instead, the Charlotte Observer took the lead among newspapers in the state.
We can all be pleased that current reporting in the N&O on the John-Boy Edwards fiasco is more aggressive now.
For those of us who are Obama supporters, I find it hilarious that the Hillary Clinton voters are indulging in the fantasy that if not for Edwards, she would be the nominee.
LOL!!!
Most of the gullible Edwards-supporting loons quickly flocked to get on board the Obama train. This would have made no difference.
Both Clinton and Edwards supporters seem to share one thing in common: A desire to follow sleaze with unrelenting fervor.
Democratic Put-Down
Sun, 08/17/2008 - 20:24 — David McKnight (not verified)You can see in this put-down of Edwards and Clinton Democrats why the campaign of an excellent Democratic presidential candidate in Sen. Barack Obama is encountering some late-summer rough sailing.
Some Obama supporters are having such fun on the Democratic merry-go-round airing their gripes about the good Democrats who worked in the Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd and Biden campaigns that they're signaling the often politically fateful boast: who needs 'em in the fall campaign?
Give the Republicans credit where credit is due: in recent national campaigns, they have done a much better job of welcoming in the supporters of other former party primary candidates for the unity campaigns of their presidential nominees than have the Democrats, who for some reason, aren't always happy with winning once in the primaries but wish to keep on dishing out adverse treatment to all the loyal Democrats who now want to support the party's nominee for the presidency.
It's a good thing that previous Democratic presidential nominees such as John Kennedy in 1960 and Jimmy Carter in 1976 did not have to cope with this sort of intra-party backbiting after their own hard-fought victories over some worthy Democratic primary opponents.
The I-told-you-so crowd who would rather taunt other Democrats in crowing about the outcome of the 2008 Democratic primary are doing a disservice to Sen. Barack Obama in his efforts to build party unity for the fall campaign.
N&O bias
Fri, 08/15/2008 - 21:20 — johnlailIt would be interesting to see how the N&O would deal with the fact that John McCain had a well documented affair wirh Cindy while he was married to his former wife. The N&O apparently cowers to the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity and devotes too much time to browbeating Democrats because they thin that the will not respond. But I will bet that you do not have the testicular tenacity to follow up on the fact that YOUR candidate had an affair as well. Is the newspaper business so bad that you have to sell out to one side reporting. What is your kickback from "hate radio"?
John
This from SLATE online.....
Thu, 08/14/2008 - 10:26 — DebrahLet me raise the alternative, third possibility contained in B(ii): there is a Second Coverup and Elizabeth Edwards, rather than being its victim, is in on it up to her eyeballs! Why do I think this is a real possibility?
First, Elizabeth was in on the first coverup, allowing her husband to go out and deny the initial Enquirer reports of his affair. (He admits to Woodruff that she knew these denials were false,)
Second, she might see her legacy as bound up with her husband's--and also want her children to have a father with a political future.**
Third, Elizabeth Edwards is famously smart, and a lawyer. Does still she really think the Enquirer is just making up the part about how Edwards' affair with Hunter restarted around the time Hunter got pregnant?She can't possibly be as dumb as People thinks its readers are. ...
**--I deny the Second Coverup would be designed to avoid having her children's father humiliated. If he'd actually came clean, in this scenario, it would more decisively kill his political career but arguably be less humiliating than being caught out in a second set of lies, which is what will probably happen now. Rather, the Second Coverup risked this extra double-humiliation for the sake of political survival (i.e., being able to later say "all I did was have a brief affair").
Moreover.....
Thu, 08/14/2008 - 10:12 — DebrahIt was Elizabeth Edwards who hired the scurrilous blogger Amanda Marcotte to work on their campaign.
Until Marcotte finally had to resign because her verbal filth and libel on internet fora were brought to light.
It is Elizabeth Edwards who plays "footsie" with the people of Daily Kos and other radical left blogs where posters were wishing a painful death for now-deceased Tony Snow---who, btw, died of cancer.
So don't continue to deify Elizabeth Edwards. Her own actions nullify such a charade.
I would urge her, as well as her husband, to practice what they spout to others......and dismiss with the pity party.
We're not buying it.
Pretzel logic
Thu, 08/14/2008 - 09:30 — DebrahTO chaboard--
You can whine, moan, grasp, and bring up every ancient episode where someone copped some nookie all day long; however, you will never be successful in eclipsing the reality that both John and Elizabeth Edwards stand out as two of the most self-serving, self-indulgent, and nauseatingly smarmy drones ever to plow onto the political stage.
I---and many others, I might add---have had it with the touchy-feely way the media have treated these two phonies.
I'm still perplexed as to how anyone could not have detected the phoniness from day one.
Millions of women suffer with cancer in this country. I worry about those who cannot pay their medical bills and do not have the access to top care.
Yet John and Elizabeth have paraded her illness as if it's something that is experienced only by them.
My G/d, how I detest these dressed-up redneck opportunists!
The media have always given Elizabeth Edwards a pass. She trashed Hillary Clinton--for good reason--and she invaded the privacy of Lynn Cheney by talking about her relationship with her daughter Mary, who is a lesbian.
John Edwards---with his typical rural sleaze---brought up Mary Cheney during the 2004 debates.
The behavior of both of these desperate kooks has been appalling, yet the media always gave them a pass.
Every person in this country wishes good health for Mrs. Edwards, as we would for anyone; however, an illness does not provide cover for the offensive behavior for which one must be held accountable....and it's about time this newspaper began to acknowledge that fact.
Elizabeth Edwards has prospered and has been on every talk show around, selling books about mundane topics that all humankind experience every day.....as if only she and her family know these tragedies.
She lives a millionaire's life made possible by her husband's career, and she was brazen enough to risk the entire status of the Democrat Party of 2008 by covering for her husband and putting on a show for yet another run for the presidency.
There isn't anything more uninteresting than thinking about what John Edwards might be doing in bed with some woman---even after he finally had that wart removed from his lip. LOL!!!
He's about as sexually appealing as Pee Wee Herman in a dark theatre; however, the deliberate lies told by both John and Elizabeth Edwards have damaged their party and certainly could have destroyed it if he had been given the nomination. That's the HUGE issue.
Just ask their former campaign manager, David Bonoir.
Thank heavens for Barack Obama.
This column is insufferably
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 21:17 — chaboard (not verified)This column is insufferably self-serving whitewash. The fact remains that the N&O printed anonymously sourced unconfirmed rumors from the *National Enquirer* - and did so by hanging it on the non-news event of Edwards not talking to the N&O.
That is a completely inexcusable breach of every journalistic standard all in one partisan shot of pure hackery.
It's worth noting, by contrast, that the N&O *refused* to cover the allegations of the John McCain (remember him? the guy who ids actually still running for President?) affair with a lobbyist...on the grounds that the story (which ran in the New York Times, not the National Enquirer) was - wait for it - anonymously sourced! In fact, I do believe the N&O has completely avoided any mention of McCain's affair with Cindy that resulted in the abandonment of his first wife. And that one has no lack of well-placed sources.
The double standard is breathtaking - but hardly new. For example, consider all the hit pieces about John Edwards' house...then contrast with the N&O's utter silence regarding McCain's *eight* houses!! There is a clear pattern of undeniable double standards here.
I've been reading the N&O for 28 years now - the paper's behaviour surrounding John Edwards is far and away the sleaziest, most unethical excuse for journalism I've seen regarding anything in all that time. Claude Sitton would be spinning in his grave. If he were dead.
Not "Excelled" ???
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 17:11 — FloydTurboAt least John Drescher stops short of claiming "We Excelled" like his predecessor, Melanie Sill, claimed about The N&O's tragically abysmal coverage of Duke Lacrosse. THE PROBLEM is allowing Rob Christensen to flirt all over the paper doing opinion columns AND (supposedly) real news.
The unmentioned elephant in the room
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 07:11 — Anonymous (not verified)The interesting part here is what is not said, ie, WHY the crack journalism team at this paper was unable to nail down the story when the Enquirer did. OK, maybe they paid off a few folks, which real newspapers do not do. But let's face it, no one in the mainstream media was very interested in nailing down the story. If a politician of another less sympathetic party had done this, the newspapers across the country would have pulled out all the stops to get the real story. No one much cared here. If the principals deny it, that's good enough for me! Move on. No story here. Great journalism guys. All I am saying is be fair about this. If you are willing to go after and slime hypocritical Republicans over sex scandals, and there has been plenty of that (Mark Foley, Larry Craig) you sure as heck need to apply the same standards to the Dems.
Larry Craig
Wed, 08/13/2008 - 11:43 — Anonymous (not verified)Your mention of Senator Craig is interesting.
Actually, the press failed to note his arrest (June 11, 2007) and his guilty plea (August 8, 2007) until several weeks after those things happened. The first reporting on it was in Roll Call (August 27, 2007). It's hard to say the senator was "slimed" when there was no coverage of his criminal conduct until long after the fact.
(Shaking head.....)
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 16:41 — DebrahTO Allen--
If you are not a rabid John Edwards supporter, then I am Swedish.
Take a valium and shut the heck up.
It's really quite amusing
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 16:32 — Bill - Miami Beach (not verified)It's really quite amusing reading all of the CMA (cover my a**) stories now coming out from the MSM after you guys all got your clocks cleaned on the Edwards story! So the Enquirer can't be trusted? Interesting! Just a reminder that in October of 1994 NY Times reporter David Margolick gushed over the Enquirer's reporting of the OJ Simpson case and called it "required reading." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E6D6103BF937A15753C1A962958260 Let me also remind you that Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke and Brian Walski never worked for the Enquirer. They worked for the NYTimes, Washington Post and LA Times respectively. And Blair worked for the Times and perpetrated his fraud for almost 4 years before being caught. If you want more examples of why some don't trust the mainstream press I suggest you read up on NY Times correspondent Herbert Matthews who just couldn't bring himself to write a bad story about Fidel Castro. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/books/review/23alter.html So please try not to be so imperious sounding when casting stones at the Enquirer; especially given the fact that you live in a very visible glass house. Perhaps you're right that the National Enquirer can't be trusted ... but there are millions of Americans who believe that "mainstream" newspapers can't be trusted either. I respectfully suggest that you get your own houses in order before taking on the Enquirer.
Your posting
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 20:17 — Jonathan (not verified)You're not acknowledging several things. First, the Enquirer regularly prints lies. Just pure lies. And it's obvious. In fact, I know people who buy it simply for that reason; it's entertaining. I don't know how many times they've written about Bigfoot or crazy pregnancies and so forth. And, yes, sometimes they do a good job. Sometimes they get the story, and that's fine. But they have unquestionably low standards, reckless even.
I don't read the Enquierer, but I would also bet they don't correct anything. Mainstream newspapers own up what they get wrong, and, just as this editor did, they frequently explain why it went wrong.
Regardless, there's a deeper commitment to full disclosure and factual reporting in mainstream media than at the Enquirer. I don't think a reasonable or informed person would argue differently.
Good response
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 16:22 — Jonathan (not verified)It's never good to get beat by a publication, particularly one with such an unreliable reputation. But I think the editor does a good job explaining why the News & Observer didn't publish a story for so long. In his position, I don't think I would have acted differently. Those who label the stories sleazy should understand that a newspaper is obligated to report on the transgressions of political figures — people tasked with representing its readers on local school boards, county councils, the State House or in Congress. It was right to pursue this story. Edwards decision to cheat on his wife could influence how someone votes.
What Edwards did could be judged as indecent. The News & Observer simply trying to tell you what happened isn't.
A disgrace, and an all-time low
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 16:06 — allenYour coverage of the John Edwards affair was the sleaziest and slimiest enterprise I've seen in the paper for a long time. World Weekly News is reporting that ET landed recently in Jerusalem, and is seeking salvation. So why aren't you chasing that story by a supermarket tabloid that is just as reputable as the National Enquirer?
I should tell you that I am not an Edwards supporter and never voted for him because I thought him a phony. But what right do you have to parade this salacious material before the eyes of my children, who I used to encourage to read the newspaper in order to understand current affairs. I've taken to hiding the newspaper and keeping it away from them now, and hoped that sanity will be recovered and the newspaper will return to reporting proper news with a level of decency and standards. Unfortunately, your column shows I am terribly mistaken.
Reporting of the Edwards affair
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 10:03 — carbonlib (not verified)I don't think i've ever seen so much back-peddling as i see now by ALL the major news services fell on their faces NOT reporting....It's sad that the National Inquirer scooped the rest of the "real" news orgs...
And you DO use anonymous sources....what's the difference between "anonymous" and "un-named" (for WHATEVER reason)..hence Crystal Gail Mangum!!
Your newspaper is guilty of reporting with no substantiating facts too. (duke lax scandal)
just admit it...........you just blew it...
Reporting of the Edwards affair
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 09:59 — carbonlib (not verified)I don't think i've ever seen so much back-peddling as i see now by ALL the major news services fell on their faces NOT reporting....It's sad that the National Inquirer scooped the rest of the "real" news orgs...