Why the Press Is Ignoring the John Edwards "Baby Story"(?)

Slate magazine has an interesting take on why the mainstream media is largely ignoring the recent story that indicates John Edwards may have secretly fathered a child by someone not his wife.

Make no mistake -- if the story is true, it's a sad story all around. No can in good conscience gloat at such an unfortunate turn of events. But the fact is, Edwards is a national figure. He ran for president twice, and is still considered one of the most prominent Democratic politicians in the nation, and is still young enough to be a viable presidential candidate in the future. So when a scandal like this breaks, why is the media silent? They seem to be selective about what scandals they give coverage, and then, how much coverage they give. Clearly, there's an agenda at work here.

For example, Republican senator Larry Craig was crucified in the press last year when he was found to have had a "bathroom encounter" with another man. So why is the Edwards story being ignored, especially since he is much more well known than Larry Craig ever was?

In an article posted today, writer Jack Shafer surmises: "

So why hasn't the press commented on the story yet? Is it because it broke too late yesterday afternoon, and news organizations want to investigate it for themselves before writing about it? Or are they observing a double standard that says homo-hypocrisy is indefensible but that hetero-hypocrisy deserves an automatic bye?

That's my sense. "

Frankly, I think he's way more off base here. The issue is not homosexual vs heterosexual. The issue is liberal vs conservative.

If this were Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani, or some other prominent Republican politician, does anyone think there would be a media blackout on this story? Not on your life. But the largely liberal media has much more enthusiasm for crucifying Republicans and conservatives than Democrats and liberals. And here once again, they're following their old pattern of bias again.