Document Actions
Wed.: Yikes!
posted at 2008-08-07 04:00 | Last modified 2008-08-07 14:05
What you said…
Boy, you folks sure had a lot to say about N&O Editor John Drescher's anti-Easley column, none of it complimentary, either. Remind me to avoid making too many of you mad at any given time. There was plenty of snark, and a few serious arguments, too, like this one from a reader who asked to remain anonymous:
Though I am by no means a fan of Easley's, I was actually appalled…It bothers me especially because I want very much for newspapers to hold politicians' feet to the fire…But if the newspaper who "takes him on" seems to be motivated by a grudge instead of a service to the public, the history of Easley's terms will read "Easley incurred the wrath of a local editor . . . . " and everyone will say, "Oh THAT's what happened. Right, these small town editors can be like that." Rip. Next.
That Drescher would so carelessly toss [the] concept that he is an objective witness with the petulant, bullying tone of that rant brings into question the paper's objectivity on ALL of its political stories.
Somebody needs to call the waaahmbulance. How dare Easley not cooperate with a paper that’s targeting him? And when did politicians ever make it easy for reporters? That’s just how it works
None of the folks who wrote me took Drescher’s side, but several folks who agreed with his column posted positive feedback in the comments section at the N&O.
Worst-kept secret
If you’re looking for a copy of the latest National Enquirer to check out the “top-secret photos” of former Senator and presidential contender John Edwards, don’t bother. I’m looking at this week’s print issue even as I write this, and there’s no new info in it -- it’s just a mish-mash of stock photos and unsourced accusations.
The only interesting photos are online at the paper’s web site, and frankly, they don’t amount to proof of malfeasance, either. There’s a ”spy-cam” shot of Edwards holding a baby in front of a curtain that looks like those used by the Beverly Hilton. The baby’s face is blurred out. Edwards’ face is iffy at best. Hunter is not shown. It could be Edwards with any baby, anywhere.
The National Review’s Byron York talked to NE Ed David Perel about the "spy cam" pic.
"The paper says it was taken inside the Beverly Hilton room in which Edwards met with Hunter.
What is a spy photo? I ask Perel.
“That’s a good question,” he says, without answering.
“Was it taken surreptitiously?”
“Well, it’s not a photo that he handed out, let’s put it that way,” Perel answers. He declines to say who took the picture or under what precise circumstances."
Well, if the Enquirer’s correct in asserting that the meetup was a private tete-a-tete between Hunter and Edwards, the list is pretty short, unless the baby’s a shutterbug.
So far, the former VP candidate has passed on commenting on the rumors. His former campaign staffer Andrew Young has publicly stated that he's the father of Hunter's baby. But the Enquirer reports both Edwards and Young have refused to take DNA tests.
Comments? Drop me a line.
