Breaking non-news!

By media farm

del.ico.us | digg it! | reddit!

print | email | 0 Comments

Several publishing organs came under fierce criticism last week. They were under fire because, after failing in their attempts to fact-check and verify a story that ran in a supermarket tabloid, and after everybody involved in the purported scandal insisted to the above-mentioned publishing organs that the story was horseshit, it turned out to be true.

John Edwards—he used to be somebody most papers cared about—was screwing around on his possibly dying wife, just as the National Enquirer said he was. Every now and then, the legless man wins the marathon, right?

Wrong. If the modern media doesn't know intrinsically when tabloid horseshit will have legs, and when it'll just be horseshit, then it's worthless to us, and we should just let TMZ tell us about Gazprom and CIA black sites and Guantanamo. (Spoiler alert: Hot n' sexxy guys and ladies could maybe be getting all types of freaky at the three aforementioned locales. We can't prove it, so let's just assume they are.) These days, being good at being the media means not being afraid to mangle your facts. Apparently.

Every newsroom in the country had heard that John Edwards might've been getting some ass on the side. So why did papers look the other way, instead sending drugs and condoms up to his hotel room? Because they're worthless and elitist. That's what we've learned from several roundup stories about how the story didn't get play because it wasn't much of a story to begin with.

The Wall Street Journal, seeming to forget that it's now owned by Rupert Murdoch, ascribed "traditional media's late arrival to the Edwards story" to "skepticism about the Enquirer, which isn't taken seriously as a Washington opinion-maker." The New York Times, noting papers' "distaste for following the lead of a publication they hold in low esteem," added that the shitrag was peddling "a story about the private conduct of an also-ran presidential candidate."

And then there was the fact that there were no facts to print. The Washington Post's executive editor told the Times, "We checked them out and we asked questions, and at no time did we have any facts to report," adding, "These kinds of allegations fly around about just about every candidate." CNN's political director told the paper it had been on the story for a year. "Edwards denied it, the woman denied it," he said. "You have to have some sort of evidence before you put something on the air." Politico's Michael Calderone even interviewed the Enquirer's reporters. But, he argued, "A media story—without a corresponding news story—is sort of a weasel way around the unpleasant fact that you can't actually confirm the rumors yourself ... It was decided that writing on the rumors—without confirming them—simply validates the Enquirer, a tabloid that's broken celebrity scandals wide open but still isn't regarded by many as a credible news source. And while the Enquirer deserves credit for some great shoe-leather reporting, the magazine still plays by a different set of rules than Politico or other outlets. And that includes the willingness to pay sources for verifiable information."

The Times, which used to be an important newspaper, had good reason to be gun-shy on the Edwards story. It wasn't too long ago that it all but accused John McCain of having geriatric sex with a comely female lobbyist. Also: Judy Miller. And Jayson Blair. The lesson from its recent embarrassments, we thought, was that newspapers are just supposed to print facts. Facts are what make the news news. When stories run without facts, Matt Drudge calls you names and makes you cry. That's how this thing works, right?

Not so, says Post media critic Howard Kurtz. "Even as some national news organizations tried halfheartedly to confirm the tawdry tale, they ignored it in public—wary of the National Enquirer, of Edwards' dismissal of 'tabloid trash,' of wading once again into the swamp of sexual scandal without definitive proof ... The fact that big newspapers, magazines and networks have standards—that is, they refuse to print every stray rumor just because it's 'out there'—is one of their strengths. But in the latter stages of this case, it made them look clueless. Perhaps there is a middle ground where media outlets can report on a burgeoning controversy without vouching for the underlying allegations, being candid with readers and viewers about what they know and don't know."

Ah. OK. In that spirit, Media Farm would like to address something that's currently out there. It's a hot rumor. The streets are talking, and they can't be ignored anymore. So here goes.

Mitt Romney killed a boy in Thailand. And, oh, the twisted things he did to the corpse!