LA Times has told bloggers not to talk about John Edwards with mistress and love

[yaahhchoo]

child at LA hotel? I find this amusing that the LA times a newspaper with little credability has asked people not to talk about John Edwards being at a hotel in Beverly Hills, CA with his love child and mistress. (he was not a guest at the hotel but the Natl. Enquirer reporters were) because it was from the Enquirer. Since when has the LA Times had more credability than the Enquirer. This is the same newspaper that helped get OJ Simpson off the hook a dozen years ago. Pretty typical of that LA rag. What do you think? http://www.slate.com/id/2195914/#latedictdinodino, I grew up reading the LA Times and it declined in credability starting about 25 years ago. They actually backed up OJ Simpson during his murder trial where a racist jury let him go scott free. I used to read the LA Times cover to cover and canceled my subscription after it lost all concern for the truth.http://www.nationalenquirer.com/This story will have legs and be around for the near future.This newspaper (or rag) also backs up Democrats in every election and promotes illegal aliens at every step of the way. I am talking about the LA Times.

[Complex Kid]

The media does not cover up *** scandals. Whoever is involved. Anyone who actually believes that the news media as a whole would cover someone's back has little understanding of how the media works. They have to be careful that there is sufficient proof to go to print or else it can blow up in their faces.

[HOPE FLOATS]

LOL who the heck cares what the Times said, keep blogging!

[Judy M]

I just saw the report on Hannity and Colmes and I think John Edwards is going to have to explain himself no matter what the deal really is. He is a public figure and if he wants a private life, he needs to get out of politics.

[stygianwolfe]

Its because Kerry is a democrat,if he were Republican it wouldve been open season.I think its crappy too that the Enquirer reporters were also kicked out of the rooms and off the premisis,while as you stated,Kerry was not a guest there.It will probably end up being a resume' enhancement on his part.

[TiedtoaRainbow]

I'm anxious to see what The Enquirer does with the tape they supposedly have. I think it's ironic that Edwards is on his way to Denver for a poverty cause when he lives in a 35,000 sq. foot home. What does he know about poverty? Just another elite pompous liberal.

[prod]

Hopefully the LEGIT news sources will put enough pressure on him to make him talk.

[Alltheway88fan]

The media is in love with liberal democrats, so I would not be surprised what they do or do not say about John Edwards.

[romer151]

This story is being covered up because John Edwards will most likely get a high ranking position in Obama's cabinet if he gets elected. You better get used to it, because if Obama does become President, freedom of speech and freedom of the press will cease to exist. This John Edwards cover-up is proof of the Obama censorship machine in action.

[dinodino]

I find it amusing that you think the National Enquirer has more credibility than the LA Times. The Enquirer has been sued successfully for libel several times and was found to have printed false stories about the Smart family for which they issued a public apology. They pay people for sensational "scoops" which no reputable paper does. The LA Times has always had a better reputation than the Enquirer.Still I would not dismiss a story out of hand just because it came from the Enquirer the way you summarily reject anything from the LA Times. "In September, 2005, the Enquirer stated that U.S. President George W. Bush was drinking and acting erratically.[6] The potential furor over this story was overshadowed by Hurricane Katrina and it went largely ignored by the national media".I tend to believe that one, how about you? Edit: OK, so I don't read the LA Times ( I was talking about their reputation as I see it) as I am from New York and I could say similar things about the NYTimes, there track record is not so great either, but I still read it (not very day anymore) with a critical eye and don't reject stories out of hand because they come from the NYT.I did read the blog on this and can see why you think the way you do, but I still think that nationally speaking the LA Times has a better rep than the Enquirer!It does sound to me like the OJ thing really disturbed you and has a big impact on what you think about anything the LA Times does. Also OJ was a long time ago and if you haven't read the paper since then that makes you less credible, as they might have made changes like the NYTimes did after their "scandals".