Congratumalations, Los Angeles Times! Just like some NYC tabloids, after weeks of all but ignoring the John Edwards scandal — and explicitly doing so — you've finally made your first public comment on the matter. And then you blogged about it. You're so on top of Web 2.0, and doing your jobs, it's making us dizzy.

National Editor Scott Kraft is finally making a public comment about the LAT's non-treatment of the story, and rather than assign a reporter to write up an article about it, he emailed his own newspaper's communications department (as well as their "readers representative), saying:

We have decided to post, on Top of the Ticket, an item and link to a Charlotte Observer report, quoting Democratic supporters of Edwards on the record as saying that they think he needs to address the National Enquirer report if he hopes to speak at the convention. While we have stayed away from that Enquirer report, because we couldn't confirm it, this strikes us as a legitimate story — that on-the-record Dems, including a former Edwards campaign manager, are criticizing Edwards' decision to stay mum on the topic and saying it might affect his credibility enough that he wouldn't get a speaking slot at the convention. (Those speaking slots haven't been decided yet, the party says.)

Ooooh, a blog item! AND A LINK! Brave journalism at work here.

So, let us get this straight: You didn't believe the Enquirer article, so you didn't feel right in commenting on it. But as soon as other people start commenting on it, it's justification enough to being your reporting? Brilliant.

[Charlotte Observer]