"The first time I laid eyes on Rielle Hunter, I could tell she was a story," insists Newsweek's Jonathan Darman, who, to be fair, did publish a "short story about how Edwards had brought this rather unorthodox woman, whom he'd met in a bar, into his campaign to make videos that showed off his unseen side" in the magazine's Periscope section way back when. But Darman doesn't get through the first graph of his post-John Edwards scandal reflection without saying this: "Edwards now admits that he had an extramarital affair with her. But at the time I had no reason to suspect there was anything between them." In hindsight, Darman may claim he knew Hunter was a story — just not what type of story.

And that's pretty much what every other media onlooker is going to claim, — you know, now that they've given themselves permission to address the issue.

It's now that the media's navel gazing will begin, as reporters and media critics analyze whether they should've moved on the Edwards story before ABC News' interview and news cycle dump aired on Friday night.

It's too late.

The National Enquirer, which moved this story's needle almost single-handedly, was deemed too downmarket by the major media to dictate if, and when, they'd report the scandal. (Funny, because Enquirer editor David Perel refused to let the MSM dictate how he'd report the story.)

WaPo's Howard Kurtz is on the meta case:

As the pressure built, Edwards continued to stonewall, hustling away from reporters at public appearances. At that point, the mainstream press seemed blind to what was starting to resemble a coverup — which, in fact, it was, as the former senator has conceded in acknowledging his lies.

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.

Politico media reporter Michael Calderone explains his reservations:

But it could be argued that 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. At Politico, several editors and reporters weighed in over e-mail with thoughts on pursuing the story.

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, which Perel said today on "Reliable Sources" was a tactic employed in their Edwards investigation.

And Calderone notes this about ABC News' own Brian Ross:

When I spoke with Ross again on Aug. 8, shortly after his team broke the news that Edwards admitted to the affair in an interview with ABC’s Bob Woodruff, he said that in order to report on the affair, he had to have the truth “out of the mouth of the man or woman.” Just having “anonymous friends or colleagues wouldn’t have been good enough,” he added.

So what lessons have we learned? We could rattle off a few, but it's not worth the copy. You see, there's no evidence here that anything is going to change. ABC's Ross, who arguably got the "get" here, himself insists that unless Edwards told him his story directly, it wasn't worth reporting; that confidential sources with knowledge of the situation would not have have been enough. Ross, of course, didn't always have that problem. Neither did anybody else in major media. But when it comes to a Democratic politician, those rules have suddenly disappeared. And now that the cat is out of the bag — now that Edwards has fessed up to the affair — nobody is saying they would've done anything differently, which makes them complicit not only in this attempted cover up, but the endless string of scandals to come. Embarrassing.