He Did It.

And the online community has been buzzing about for weeks, but the MSM is finally reporting: John Edwards had an affair while running for President and lied about it.

He admitted it to ABC News.

How the Media is (not) Handling Suskind's Allegations

I like Marty Kaplan. Read his take on the MSM coverage of Ron Suskind's new book:

When this came up on MSNBC, moderator Chuck Todd asked Politico's Mike Allen whether this would lead "the anti-war crowd" in Congress to call for impeachment. Allen replied that it would "give the lefty blogosphere something to grab onto."

And so, in less time than it takes to say "Dick Cheney," the subject is changed from what would be one of the most outrageous violations of the Constitution in the history of the Republic to a left/right issue.

Since I like Chuck Todd, I won't blame this on him though...his thoughts are all political, not investigative. It'll be interesting to see how other journalists handle it though.

What is up with John Edwards - and why is the media not discussing?

I have no idea if this story about John Edwards having an affair - and a baby with the mistress - is true. Actually, I assumed it was false last fall when it first came up and then went away after a strong denial from Edwards. But after all the chatter this weekend, I'm back to wondering if he really is a man who cheated on his dying wife with a campaign staffer, had a baby and denied the whole thing publicly. Seems he was caught last week leaving the hotel - at 2:45 a.m. - where the woman and baby were staying in Los Angeles. Now, the folks who "caught" him are from the National Enquirer, but sounds like the story is still true. (And remember, they are the ones who reported on Jesse Jackson's 'love child', Gennifer Flowers' affair with Bill Clinton and other scandals.)

I just can't understand why the MSM is ignoring the story...it's not being ignored by those of us who follow politics (too closely). Read these stories from Slate and Salon for more on the story, and on why it's being ignored. Just Google "John Edwards" and you can find more info, like this one.

Vick and diapers

Okay, I know it's a Friday, at the end of summer, but does this stuff really constitute as news (and Breaking News, no less)??

- Someone named Michael Vick who gets paid a lot of money to play a sport is pleading guilty to something having to do with being a bad person.

- The sad female astronaut - who we all remember (because it was "reported" incessantly) wore diapers to drive cross country to attack another woman who was also dating her cheating boyfriend - was in court asking to have her ankle tracker removed.

- And more old news about a child molester who has already been convicted of horrible crimes gets sentenced in Florida.

- Then, there are those pictures and video of that poor little 5-year-old Iraqi boy who was set on fire. Very sad, compelling even, but does CNN need to air it every 5 minutes?!

Ahhhh! Does this remind anyone else of the summer of sharks immediately preceding 9/11? Maybe it's just me...

A shared pet peeve

Caught this in The Washington Post this morning...

How Fresh Is Your Cable News? Check the Label

This just in! There's no more news on TV, at least not on the cable news networks. Plain old news apparently just isn't good enough anymore, so TV news stories have been getting new and improved names.

President Bush's latest news conference? CNN labels it a "Developing Story." A car bombing in Baghdad? The banner on MSNBC reads, "Breaking News." A blown transformer in New York City? Fox News Channel is on it, with a graphic that announces, "Very Latest."

Perhaps the biggest question is why the news needs such quickened-breath labels at all. Isn't all news just, you know, new information? Jeremy Gaines, a spokesman for MSNBC, replies that the labels "telegraph the story in a visual way" for channel-surfing viewers.

Ah. Kind of makes sense. With all the talk shows and shouting heads on TV, with all the opinion-mongering and vicious partisanship, a banner on the screen reading "News Alert" reminds viewers that the news channels still sometimes get around to . . . covering the news.

And then there was "news" about Anna Nicole Smith's baby's daddy (see image). Was that really Breaking News?

What that guy said...

Despite the fact that President Bush and VP Dick Cheney have committed high crimes and misdemeanors, I have not been very supportive of those calling for their impeachment. But, like Mike Lux, writing at the Huffington Post, today's news was the last straw for me:

With the announcement yesterday that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges filed by Congress, the Bush administration has made it 100% clear, once and for all, that they consider themselves utterly and totally above the law. Democrats in Congress have to take a stand, and have to push back. They have to make it clear to the country that the President and Vice-President are not free to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

I wouldn't stop at impeachment either. Congress has an "inherent contempt" power, allowing them to hold their own trials and jail those found in defiance. It hasn't been used since 1934, but it's time to roll that power out of the mothballs. Democrats, if you fear going the impeachment route because of the reasons I mentioned above, then that idea is worth trying.

You can read more from The Washington Post here.

And to make this development worse, all I've seen on TV news today is that Bush is getting a colonoscopy (labeled: breaking news), the Harry Potter book is being released tonight (I'm excited too, but this is not news) and Hillary's opponents are offering advice to other opponents on how to beat her (does this do anything to inform the public?). Amazing.

I have to agree with Kevin Drum on this

As Newsday reported yesterday:

WASHINGTON - Rudolph Giuliani's membership on an elite Iraq study panel came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group, causing the panel's top Republican to give him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit, several sources said.

Giuliani left the Iraq Study Group last May after just two months, walking away from a chance to make up for his lack of foreign policy credentials on the top issue in the 2008 race, the Iraq war.

He cited "previous time commitments" in a letter explaining his decision to quit, and a look at his schedule suggests why - the sessions at times conflicted with Giuliani's lucrative speaking tour that garnered him $11.4 million in 14 months.

Yet, it has barely even been mentioned by the MSM. Here's what Kevin had to say at Political Animal:

I'm keenly aware that an awful lot of blog criticism of the mainstream media is basically just partisan sniping. But is this seriously not considered news? A guy who's running for president based on his reputation as a hero of 9/11 was given a seat on the highest profile group ever created to investigate a way forward in Iraq, but he decided it wasn't worth his time? He blew off James Baker and Lee Hamilton so that he could give speeches in South Korea and attend fundraisers for Ralph Reed in Atlanta? And the consensus reaction is a big yawn?

UPDATE: Well, CNN just covered this story - but only after talking about the Giuliani supporter who got busted for dealing crack and the campaign aide who just jumped ship. I don't know...I think the Iraq Study Group news is more important than either of those two tidbits.

Is this ever going to stop?

Why do "journalists" and their editors/producers insist of force-feeding us news about Paris Hilton?? Now, I subscribe to Us Weekly because I like celebrity "news" as much as the next red-blooded American, but I don't expect to be getting that same trashy info from CNN. Celebrity gossip has more than enough outlets; the MSM should go back to actually trying to report things we need to know!

Here's how Marty Kaplan's latest post concludes...definitely worth reading! (And the photo included here will make sense once you read his post.)

Democracy, said our Founders, depends on an educated citizenry. That's why they protected the news business with the First Amendment. On the other hand, it's a good bet that Spring Comes Early for Paris isn't exactly what they had in mind.

Also related...Read about how CNN's anchors reported the Paris Is Free news (I actually felt a little sorry for them): CNN Anchors Mock Paris Hilton "News;" Who Forces Them To Cover This Crap?