Monday, March 01, 2010
"Edwards epilogue: Does the press really vet presidential candidates?"
Here's a well-written article discussing the media's coverage/non-coverage of former Presidential candidate John Edwards.
While I have no issues with the article itself, I still consider the media to be negligent.
For a large percentage of voters, the media is the ONLY source for information which they subsequently use to make their voting decisions. That's why the media's role is MOST important.
If media organizations can't find the resources to do investigative reporting, their current decline will likely continue...
At Politico.com, Michael Calderone begins his article with:
"Over the past few weeks, the world has learned quite enough about John Edwards – from the lies he told in trying to cover up an adulterous affair to the compulsive vanity that left some people close to him questioning his judgment and even his grip on reality.
Democrats who seriously considered making Edwards the party’s 2008 presidential nominee could be forgiven for asking: Now you tell us?
The revelations about Edwards, contained in two best-selling books, have undermined one of the favorite conceits of political journalism, that the intensive scrutiny given candidates by reporters during a presidential campaign is an excellent filter to determine who is fit for the White House."
