Re my earlier post on the subject: Despite the stalwart defense across the blogosphere of the public's right to not know, citing every conceivable political, psychological, and humanitarian excuse, the media may finally soon have to hold its collective nose and publish something on the John Edwards paternity story upon today's publication of candid photos of the ex-candidate and the kid:

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/exclusive_john_edwards_love_child_photos...

But who knows? Maybe the Beijing-style mandate against any mention of the story will continue, at least until the start of the actual Olympics (which lack only the colorful figures of Adolf Hitler and his entourage to grotesquely simulate the 1936 Berlin Games; already hundreds of protesting farmers have been swept into jail, and an an Internet block has been applied to journalists), where it can then be buried in the back pages or after the weather. My personal guess is that it will first appear on the Sunday talk shows, but I'm ever the optimist.

Here's the bigger problem--though I'm sure many here will object to my stating it at all. Right now John McCain is running (and starting to gain traction in every poll I've seen this week) against the mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, which has in the public perception at least, conducted a personal vendetta against him. Bear in mind that the Times wrote an entire article on the subject of McCain's supposed affaire with a lobbyist based entirely on gossip--and has now refrained from even mentioning the Enquirer's ongoing compilation of evidence against Edwards. In every poll other than those conducted by Editor & Publisher, the public perceives the media as generally liberal and slanted toward Obama; growing numbers see this presidential contest as McCain taking on a huge 'liberal establishment' in much the same way Ronald Reagan did in 1980. I cannot emphasize too heavily what an enormous disservice this is to the Democratic Party and to Obama's chances in the general election. Rather than being seen as the outsider, the reformer, or the underdog, Obama has been transmuted in the matter of just a few short weeks into incumbency--and moreover into an incumbent whose fawning adherents (ie, the pundits and TV 'talking heads') are incapable of reporting any negative news regarding Edwards, the man who two weeks ago topped every single party poll as Obama's vice-presidential running-mate. Not to mention Obama himself. When Dana Millbank dared to do so in the Washington Post, he was immediately kicked off Olbermann's TV show. Naturally, the question arises: if the media will not report what is more and more evidently a sex scandal (obviously the one the LA Times was widely reported to be 'sitting on' last year, then how on earth can the American public ever expect they might do the same with Obama?

It's perfectly obvious to any objective observer that one of the things that has dragged Obama's poll numbers down and threatens to doom his candidacy is this dishonest favoritism. Individuals in the media may not be be objective--that is their right. But like Caesar's wife ( a favorite metaphor), the public expects the appearance of virtue from its TV newscasters. It would be a tragedy indeed for Barrack Obama if those who destroyed his campaign were his fiercest adherents, but that's very much beginning to seem the case.

Am I saying that the media should immediately 'go negative' on Obama? No, not at all. A bit less coverage would be wise (half the correspondents in the latest Rasmussen believe Obama is 'over-exposed', which has doomed many an actor from TV commercial work). But please, at least report the 'negative Democrat' news that doesn't affect him. Because, fairly or not, all those hicks in the swing states judge you precisely on these sorts of stories. And they trust you less and less every day to report them at all.

UPDATE:

And while you're busy attacking me for daring to point out the obvious on this issue, a few of you might want to pile as well onto this update to my previous anthrax post: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/08/documents_link_ivins_t...

This would seem to offer some new elements in the story. However, I would like to emphasize that it by no means closes the case. Greenwald has raised a few good points, as have others. And this begs the questions of why it took the FBI seven years to release these docs--and why they persecuted Hatfill in the meantime.
--