Mickey Kaus, your prayers have been answered. After weeks (months, actually) of reporting on the John Edwards mistress scandal, the National Enquirer's editor David Perel has finally printed the "spy photo" of the former senator holding his alleged love child Frances Quinn Hunter, daughter of Rielle Hunter.
This is, of course, damning proof that the Edwards scandal is real! Or at least it should be. Common wisdom suggests that now that there are photos — pixelated, out of focus, and blurry — of Edwards holding his daughter, the MSM who have so far mostly ignored the story will jump on it. That's the thing with television news, at least: Without a picture (or video), a story is pretty limp. But now they can splash the Enquirer's pages all over your television screen! Though there's no guarantee they will.
Some news execs say they won't report on the Edwards scandal because it's a non-story; Edwards is somehow a private citizen all of a sudden, even though he was just a U.S. senator and possible candidate for vice president. The rationale is non-sense, and only helps the right-wing argument that the liberal media protect its own.
Other journalism types will attribute their caution on reporting on Edwards to lessons learned from things like Memogate, where false rumors and faked documents led to very embarrassing media scandals and backtracking. This argument holds a modicum more weight, but that's about it. At the very least, the media should be questioning why Edwards won't answer questions about the scandal.
Smartly, the Enquirer leads its story with an aggressive defense: Critics, especially in the left-y blogosphere, will move quickly to call the photos bunk (if they respond to the article at all), which is why the tabloid rag was wise to kick off the story by explaining why you should believe the photos are authentic.
"Edwards is holding his love child while standing in front of the distinctive striped curtain," reads the copy. "The same window covering hangs in each one of the hotel's guest rooms — and is clearly visible in photos of guest rooms on the hotel's website."
We'll hold our breath while we wait to see if it's enough.
Editorial Director
It begs the question - who took this photo. If the "absolute proof" curtain is behind him then the picture was taken from inside the room -not from far away through the window. So was it the baby-mama? Room service? Was the room set up ahead of time? Something is strange here…
Nice writing style. I look forward to reading more in the future.
This picture has got to be a fake. Who holds their own child out in front of them like a sack of potatoes? This may be a typical "pick up the baby in the crowd", photo from a campaign stop that has been photoshopped onto a different background. IMO, it's fake.
There is no longer "absolute photographic proof" that cannot be photoshoped. That one little computer program has made it impossible to ever state with certainty that this is who it is supposed to be. Need more than this.
1) If this is a legit photo, it can't possibly be legal. You can't sneak a camera into a private hotel room and snap a spy photo, then publish it!
2) If it's a Photoshop job, which i doubt, then an intrepid blogger will inevitably find the photo — and the National Enquirer's rep regarding scandal stories will go in the toilet.
You'd think somebody as rich as Edwards could afford to replace his sweat stained tees once in a while!
Of course it's a legit photo. This is the National Enquirer, not CBS/CNN/NBC. And they will be able to prove it by the "RAW" digital image which cannot be altered.
And we don't know whether it was taken inside or outside the room. It's blurry enough that a telephoto lens might have been used. And I'm sure they have a TON more photos of Edwards in this situation.
If they did anything illegal - a big if - don't worry, superlawyer Edwards will be on their case. He has been strangely silent, no?
But point to a law that says it's illegal to take surreptitious photos and publish them. You won't find one.
Cry "PhotoShop," and let slip the dogs of denial!
Could have been taken with a cell phone camera or from a camera planted inside the room possibly (like a hidden surveillence camera) but if this is legit then the mistress is the one who gave the NE the heads-up on this and access to the room.
i think it's real. it was taken by a cell phone camera or long photo lens camera from across the street or something. it's him for sure. and they surely have many more photos. he's busted and done. hopefully elizabeth will kick him out and go on with her life. what an idiot he and his ho-bag whore are. the bastard child is cute though.
This story is just balony and the photos are seriously lacking as "proof". Amazes me that the National Enquirer is even taken seriously at all.
Then again, you got Paris Hilton doing campaign commercials now…
Wrong:
Rielle Hunter's "intuitive" astrologer, Bob McGovern, was there and booked the rooms.
John's looking good in his Carolina blue tee shirt…what a fool to get caught like this. Of course it's true. Do you think the Enquirer would be publishing this knowing that Edwards is an accomplished trial lawyer?
When will the Enquirer finally go under??? I'm sick of them and this non-story. Just go away!!!
why is he so sweaty? Guys don't forget - the enquirer pays big bucks for their stories. I bet the baby mama is cashing in.
This photo quality is amazingly bad. They knew he was in the room - they got a real photo of him messing with the curtains. The messy photo could be extreme telephoto through a curtain crack, hitting off a mirror.
Even a video camera / cellphone camera slammed up against the door peephole might work. They spent WEEKS processing the (massive reverse-fisheye?) distortion. You just need one frame from peephole video with him standing in exactly the right place.
Also, they had several lookouts. The hotel hallway must have been deserted at 2AM. So the photographer could have been pretending to use his cellphone when anyone walked by, alerted by lookouts.
Course it's true. I feel sorry for his family.
1) Shock
2) Denial
3) Anger
4) Despair
5) Acceptance
Call me when you get to 'anger'.
Good thing the MSM toadies are so diciplined. We need to protect Elizabeth, you know. Well, or at least show her the same consideration The Best Husband & Father in the World shows her.
Cuz’ we wouldn’t want her to find out who she’s really married to. The same way Hillary Cinton was shocked to discover Billy-Jeff receiving oral testimony.
The truly great part, is that a $100 million trial lawyer like John Edwards will never allow this slander to continue. He’ll sue the National Enquirer off the planet, right?
Right?
Right?
Right?…
Somebody should ask Edwards was he holding a baby the day he made this video
http://www.newsvine.com/_val/5.....C1C8B59188
I think he may have been set up
It was taken for National Enquirer, the same people who broke the Gary Hart story..that had the infamous pictures of the Bruno Magli shoes..OJ Simpson had on but denied owning. It is real and taken by room service. Like it or not this is a picture of the baby daddy and his newborn..