ANOTHER MEMO TO BLOGGERS ABOUT THE EDWARDS/HUNTER AFFAIR at the L.A. Times.
I’ll just note that the L.A. Times didn’t have the same concern for propriety when it published what Larry Lessig described as “a baseless smear” against Judge Kozinski just last month. Conveniently flexible, those journalistic “standards.”
UPDATE: In the London Times: Sleaze Scuppers Democrat Golden Boy. “The New York Times has not deigned to touch the story, although it recently ran thousands of words on a relationship between McCain and a female lobbyist, which appeared to be based more on innuendo than fact.” As I say, flexible standards.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Richard Fernandez: “The irony is that the John Edwards legend and all of its props were created by artful manipulation of the media. Nobody objected to that. But when the National Enquirer threatened to introduce the legend to its opposite there was a hue and cry about their lack of professionalism, etc. It may be pertinent to point out the Enquirer’s offense wasn’t entirely against the privacy of three people. Their real crime was to threaten to expose the facade built up with the help of parts of the press itself; to destroy the accepted narrative with an inconvenient fact. The news wasn’t that two people were having an affair at the Beverly Hilton; the real headline was that a carefully contrived myth was in danger of being exploded.”
MORE: Reader James Ruhland emails: “You say they have ‘conveniently flexible’ standards. But that’s not true. They are very consistent in applying two standards: One for the Left, and one for everyone else. The standards aren’t flexible at all, but very rigidly consistent when recognized, and are employed not just by journalists but across the board by the elect in this brave new world in which we live in.” I stand corrected. And I appreciate the subtle James Bond/Paul McCartney reference, which is very appropriate.
MORE STILL: “Keep Rockin’!” And a reader suggests that we should be grateful to the British press for doing the jobs Americans won’t do.