Edwards getting a bad rap on Enquirer photo?
posted at 3:21 pm on August 6, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
I wasn’t planning to blog the story otherwise, but honestly, the more I look at that blur the more it looks like a Photoshop filter. (“Denial!” snarks Deceiver.) I’ve used the paint and blur P-shop filters myself on occasion when working on a satirical image that I couldn’t get to look quite right; the filters help soften and obscure the hard lines that indicate where the “stitching” is. Same here, maybe? Not good enough? All right, let’s try another angle. The encounter in the hotel allegedly took place on July 21. Here’s an AP photo of Edwards taken earlier that same day in Los Angeles. Compare the sideburns and the distance between his hair and his right temple. Hmmm. Still not good enough? Well, the original Enquirer story claims he was wearing a “blue dress shirt” when he entered the building. There’s no collar on the shirt in the new Enquirer photo (in fact, in the smaller photo — which clearly is Edwards — it looks a bit like a hospital gown), although I guess he could have changed for whatever inexplicable reason when he got to the room. Still not good enough? Okay, then — how’d they get a camera into the room in the first place? The photo with the baby couldn’t have been shot from outside through the window; not only are the curtains closed, but they’re behind him. The original story did say that the Enquirer had “learned ahead of time” about the meeting and suggested that they might even have known the room numbers in advance, but there’s conspicuously no mention of hidden cameras even though that would have been a blockbuster detail.
On the other hand, would the Enquirer really try to pass off a Photoshop on a story as hot as this knowing that it’ll get massive scrutiny and Adobe geeks will be looking to debunk it? Seems too clever by half. Exit question: Fauxtography?
Update: To be clear, there’s little doubt that Edwards was at the hotel. The question is, is the photo real or did they cook it to corroborate the story?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
LoveLust child.What’s love got to do with it?
jgapinoy on August 6, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Yeah. They gotta come up with better than this photo. Like the ones they allegedly took when he left the building.
It's Vintage, Duh on August 6, 2008 at 3:24 PM
This story reeks of fake but it doesn’t make Edwards any less of a populist blowhard, politically.
Hoodlumman on August 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM
This is stupid. The story was trickling along just fine without these photos.
HawaiiLwyr on August 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM
WCNC is reporting that hollywood police have reports of John Edwards being confronted by inquirer reporters
William Amos on August 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM
I dunno. But I do know that if it’s real, it’ll all come out eventually. Until then I’ll reserve judgement.
Bob's Kid on August 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM
I’m outraged! Do you have any idea how much carbon that child will go through in a lifetime?
marklmail on August 6, 2008 at 3:26 PM
There ya go.
TheSitRep on August 6, 2008 at 3:27 PM
If the photo turns out to be fake, the Enquirer can no longer claim to be more respected than CBS News.
Cicero43 on August 6, 2008 at 3:27 PM
True dat.
jgapinoy on August 6, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Glue-on sideburns.
I use them all the time.
pseudonominus on August 6, 2008 at 3:29 PM
They didn’t even give him 10 minutes to comb his hair! Those bastards!
MB4 on August 6, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Has anyone mentioned fake but accurate yet?
wise_man on August 6, 2008 at 3:29 PM
I think the inquirer is trying to drag this stuff out for all the $ its worth. They want to keep the story out there.
William Amos on August 6, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Maybe the NE intentionally fuzzied up the photo to raise doubts, increase noise about the story; and next week they will release clear photos: two circulation boosts for the price of one?
ParisParamus on August 6, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Fake but accurate.
/sarc
JustTruth101 on August 6, 2008 at 3:30 PM
You don’t publish photos regarding a “trial lawyer” unless you know for a fact they are legit.
I am sure the Enquirer has “lawyers” who have instructed them on the same issue.
RobertInAustin on August 6, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Now that’s ‘taking one for the team’, if Edwards is indeed the father.
LimeyGeek on August 6, 2008 at 3:32 PM
(yes, of course I want this sanctimonious f___ to fall…)
ParisParamus on August 6, 2008 at 3:32 PM
What`s love got to do, got to do with it
What`s love but a sweet old fashioned notion
What`s love got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken
- Tina Turner
MB4 on August 6, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Ha! Look! It says “These are the photos everybody’s been waiting for”! hahaha
Tony737 on August 6, 2008 at 3:33 PM
So, the photo may or may not show something this is or is not but it is absolutely a fact that Edwards left a hotel that he was not registered to be staying at … at 2AM.
I am sure that there are plenty of other legitimate reasons for him to leave a hotel room at 2AM for. Must be. I mean, shouldn’t there be? Probably a dozen. At least.
wise_man on August 6, 2008 at 3:35 PM
I never did know what to say to a man that readily quotes Tina Turner…..”backs to the wall”, perhaps?
;)
LimeyGeek on August 6, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Me: Who is Tina Turner?
Alex: That is correct for $200.
txsurveyor on August 6, 2008 at 3:36 PM
I think they may have blurred it intentionally leaving the clear photos in the paper only to force people to buy it. Why give it away free on the web?
TheBigOldDog on August 6, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Lets see……a millionaire trial lawyer who happened to run for vice president of the United States that rips defendants apart for a living. Lets slander him and see if anything happens. Yeah…right.
volsense on August 6, 2008 at 3:37 PM
That shot NE right back into the headlines again didn’t it? They are a magazine. They make money selling magazines. They are making money from this. They don’t care if Edwards lives or dies or if he gets picked for VP or anything else for that matter, unless it impact their sales. You can bet that whatever good stuff they have, they’ll drop by the convention because interest will pretty much end at that point once Edwards isn’t the VP.
And what do you think Edwards chances of being VP are now? He was the most popular pick for their base before this. I think his chances are so close to none as to make no difference. All because of a bunch of unproved allegations that he’s been reluctant to deny.
Scoff at NE if you want… I do. But they’ve taken him out.
Immolate on August 6, 2008 at 3:37 PM
My explanation: The shirt and sideburns don’t meet spec because he just returned from the gym, notice the sweat around the collar. The picture was taken from the peep hole? I don’t know if you can do that but if you compare the image from the hotel room notice the chair in front of the curtains, he might have been sitting within view of the door and they shot the pic through the peep hole explaining why its looks fuzzy. Which if they did they wouldn’t admit because that would surely be illegal, right? Oh wait Google says privacy no longer exists.
knat on August 6, 2008 at 3:38 PM
With some help from the Tubes song “What Do You Want from Life” I fixed it for ya.
Liberty or Death on August 6, 2008 at 3:39 PM
It’s probably best if you look the other way and just pretend like you didn’t see or hear him and just walk on by.
MB4 on August 6, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Deciding whether Hunter’s baby is Andrew Young’s or John Edward’s is child’s play. Edwards was just visiting Andy’s baby at 2:00 in the morning. Yeah…right.
volsense on August 6, 2008 at 3:41 PM
They say they have more photos. Let’s see them and then decide.
I strongly doubt they’d risk financial ruin over this clown, and obviously they didn’t have lights and Silky posing for them.
JammieWearingFool on August 6, 2008 at 3:42 PM
As reported here, the digital photo is blurred, not the print. Story making.
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/08/john-edwards-scandal-enquirer-print-trumps-digital/
pat on August 6, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Possible explanation of the photo composition: John-boy wears his blue dress shirt with this lighter blue tee shirt (not hospital gown) underneath, takes off his dress shirt before feeding his daughter, and while in the process of burping her on his shoulder, squirt turns her head inward and spits up down the front of the tee shirt, hence the wetness under John-boy’s neck.
Can’t and won’t try to explain the blurring.
Bob Owens on August 6, 2008 at 3:47 PM
I knew it was Allah behind this headline. The story is true, no unfairness. If it wasn’t Edwards would have proven it false by now and sued.
echosyst on August 6, 2008 at 3:49 PM
I took both photos (NE and the one from earlier the same day), enlarged and lined them up.
The right temple hairline is different but that could be because his hair is flipped forward in the NE photo. The ears, sideburns, eyes & mouth line up pretty well (given the shot-angle differences) but there’s no way I can say conclusively that these are photos of the same person because the NE photo is so low-resolution and has so many artifacts.
I still think the one of him at the window was taken from a long distance outside the room, possibly before the curtains were closed.
If it’s not Edwards it’s a very good lookalike, possibly a deliberate setup? And if it’s not him I’d expect him to be out front trying to clear his name. Time will tell.
Gilda on August 6, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Actually, I thought “hospital gown” at first also, because if you aren’t really paying attention or thinking too hard about it it looks like he’s inspecting an IV tube or something.
If you do actually look at it though, it looks like he is pretty clearly trying to draw some curtains closed. Perhaps he drew the curtains closed after noticing the Enquirer guys, and at some point in the ordeal maybe someone surprised him with a shot from inside. These are paparazzi types we’re talking about, and I wouldn’t really put much past them in terms of violating his privacy.
DaveS on August 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM
That’s a fight Edwards would never pick. Even if the photo is fake, the evidence is pretty strong that the story is not. So Edwards sues the Enquirer. The Enquirer pleads “truth” as a defense and gets a court order to test the baby’s DNA. The Enquirer also takes depositions of Edwards and the alleged Babymama. Those are all good for months of exclusive Enquirer stories.
So, unless the entire story is fabricated, the Enquirer’s got nothing to worry about legally by running a photoshopped image. Commercially, yeah, it would be stupid since it would probably reverse the momentum of a good story.
Cicero43 on August 6, 2008 at 3:53 PM
May I congratulate everyone for not remarking on the baby’s mom. I, on the other hand, can only say “Really?”. I thought he was consider the cutest thing going. I am so ashamed of myself and blame the tabloids for only showing unflattering pictures of her.
Cindy Munford on August 6, 2008 at 3:55 PM
The nose doesn’t look right to me. I can’t believe they would run pictures that weren’t of him, though. A fake werewolf maybe, but not Edwards.
Sue on August 6, 2008 at 3:56 PM
………. about a few moments or so, then a sense of loss of bodily fluids, a smoke, finish the drink while dressing, a promise to call, then “…. got to get back to the wife and kids, you understand”.
……… sound of door closing while leaving.
Seven Percent Solution on August 6, 2008 at 3:56 PM
It can’t be him.
The guy in that photo has unkept hair.
Conservative_SAHM on August 6, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I admit that the photograph looks blurry. But I am still reluctant to brand it a fake. Remember, The National Enquirer was the one that broke this story in the first place. A fake photo will only give the liberal media ( who are already refusing to cover this story ) a justification for not covering it, and an opportunity to run to John Edwards aid.
I am willing to let this one play itself out.
RMR on August 6, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Heh. You have kids, don’t you?
Weight of Glory on August 6, 2008 at 4:00 PM
That parallelogram-shaped darkening (that that arrow conveniently points directly to) seems to be a selected (and burned) chop. A bad one at that.
But if that’s true then the ‘chop was meant to be challenged, and discovered.
Because if the photo turns out an obvious ‘chop, and obviously discreditable, then Edwards gets off the hook a bit with his wife, with BHO (VP, AG?), and with the milling slug Democrats (as if any of those even care whether or not this story is credible).
So, The Enquirer accepts some ‘cash’ for a bad ‘chop; gets more cash from their regular corps of supermarket dopes; and comes out smelling like a shitheap.
Which is nothing unusual, for them.
Serr8d on August 6, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Yeah, it looked weird to me too but it’s just too blurry to tell.
Allahpundit on August 6, 2008 at 4:00 PM
I’m not sure if it’s real or not but on the point about the curtain being behind him: the picture could have been taken in a mirror. Often in hotel rooms you have a mirror on the wall that faces the wall where the windows/curtains are. Just a theory.
pleaseandthankyou on August 6, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Not really trying to defend the NE, but figured I’d hypothesize. As to how the picture was taken and why it’s so blurry, a possibility would be a “snake cam” (if you’ve played Rainbow Six: Las Vegas 2″ you know what I’m talking about…or if you’ve seen enough spy/espionage flicks).
A snake cam is a tiny camera on a small flexible, semi rigid tube, often used by hostage rescue teams to get a view inside an otherwise blocked off area. They can be snuck under doors, through vents, etc. Picture quality leaves something to be desired (but is sufficient to show locations of hostages and hostiles, for instance). I’m guessing such technology isn’t exclusive to SWAT/FBI/et al.
ynot4tony2 on August 6, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Does anyone have a hard copy to see if this is true? Or am I going to have to go to Kroger to find out?
Weight of Glory on August 6, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Yes and based on that I doubt they have to use photoshop photo’s for this case.
JeffinSac on August 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM
My guess is that the pic in the lower left of the right hand page is Edwards (perhaps taken during the late night hotel bust) and the Enquirer brought in an actor for the larger pic with the baby using a similar shirt with similar sweat stain and had to blur it to make it appear to be him.
Texas Rainmaker on August 6, 2008 at 4:08 PM
You can’t convince me otherwise. The sideburns look pretty similar and the hair line differs because it’s combed slightly differently, and the photo outside is slightly wind blown (heaven forbid).
Has anyone heard this Queen of Whiners object to any of this? Do you doubt you would hear him cry?
stacman on August 6, 2008 at 4:10 PM
If anyone believes the picture is real they will be branded a “Truther.”
Capitalist Infidel on August 6, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Obviously a racist, Republican, dirty trick!
Thats’ not the John Edwards (and Baby) I knew!
Obamanation
dhunter on August 6, 2008 at 4:10 PM
If the story is true, then Edwards was set up by someone he trusted. Could be a bad cell phone photo.
Maybe Rielle finally figured out that he’s not really planning to marry her. Maybe Rielle’s long-time buddy McGovern is tired of baby-sitting.
Again, if the story is true.
obladioblada on August 6, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Well, no…
It’s definitely Edwards. And it’s not a Photoshop blur. If it were, then what’s being assumed is that this image of Edwards holding someone’s kid was flown into the hotel room in front of the curtains, which were shot presumably after the fact.
But he’s obviously wearing the same shirt with the same sweat stain in the non-blurred picture, so unless these two pictures–both of him holding the baby and wearing the shirt can be shown to have been taken elsewhere–the blurry image isn’t a fake.
Yes, it would be possible and conceivable to blur him into another image, but to build up the image of him holding the kid and then fly it in, not nearly so much.
Typhoon on August 6, 2008 at 4:14 PM
The blurred picture looks way too much like the guy from Quantum Leap to me to be Edwards, but my eyes are just not good enough to tell the difference between the two side burns. They look about the same to me.
Also, as to the question about how they got the picture, they do call it a spy photo, which would lead you to believe that in the article it talks about a hidden camera.
Esthier on August 6, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Guess it’s time to look for baby photos!
Seixon on August 6, 2008 at 4:23 PM
I want to see the rest of the pics
jp on August 6, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Why does it look like Edwards is sitting in a dark chair in the blurry photo, but in the one showing the room it is a light colored chair.
Anyway, here’s the bottom line. We use it for everyone else and shouldn’t let NE slide:
SHOW US THE ORIGINAL PHOTOS (the ones with the exif info.)!!!
Dusty on August 6, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Dusty,
They aren’t the same room? Check their website to see if there are different colored chairs pictured.
Sue on August 6, 2008 at 4:34 PM
I don’t know if the photos are fake or not, but I’m inclined to believe that the story is true — mainly because it would be so easy to disprove it if it’s not true. The woman and this Andrew Young guy have both said that Young is the father. Young is supposed to be a good friend of Edwards. If Edwards asked Young to submit to a DNA test to prove his paternity and put the story to rest, what reason would Young have to refuse? He has already made a public declaration that the baby is his — so he can’t argue that he’s protecting his wife or kids. There just isn’t any reason for Young to refuse a paternity test — unless he’s lying about being the daddy to protect the real daddy.
AZCoyote on August 6, 2008 at 4:35 PM
http://www.beverlyhilton.com/Guest_Rooms/guest_rooms.asp
Sue on August 6, 2008 at 4:35 PM
…and I just spent 20 minutes reading the post and reading all the comments.
There must be a name for whatever this morbid desire is to poke a toothpick into a sore tooth but damn if I know what it is.
E9RET on August 6, 2008 at 4:35 PM
the Cached Wiki entry with 83 sources on this scandal, that someone at Wiki recently deleted
http://www.webcitation.org/5ZoRfgOa4
jp on August 6, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Would Dan Rather and CBS actually fake memos to influence the outcome of a presidential election?
Would the NYT print stories that were complete fabrications created by their reporters?
Would MoveOn portray doctor a photo of British Soldiers and present it as Americans having a lousy Thanksgiving in the desert?
It’s not out of the realm of possibility but it is pretty hard not to get burned by doing this kind of stuff these days.
highhopes on August 6, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Has anyone here actually seen the paper edition?
Sue on August 6, 2008 at 4:41 PM
If the whole thing is fake, when is the King of Torts going to file a lawsuit? Or is he temporarily indisposed?
GarandFan on August 6, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Talk about a blackout on CNN.
I tried linking to this HA thread.
When trying to link to the CNN story Ed refers to in his write-up, I got this.
Entelechy on August 6, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Let’s get Maury Povich on these photos, immediately. The dude would know.
Tricky stuff though trying to analyze Pony’s hair—can’t be done. His hair has magical powers and combined with those $500 haircuts, he can just will style changes, on demand, at any time.
PC14 on August 6, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Would he not have sued by now? It’s already cost him the Dem VP “short” and “long” list.
Marcus on August 6, 2008 at 4:46 PM
It’s not my area of expertise, but I think a hidden camera would be an actionable invasion of privacy (even public figures have a right to privacy in a private hotel room). Perhaps, as Cicero suggests, the NE has some sort of an Alger Hiss strategy up its sleeve (in which case the pictures could be a total fabrication), but I think a more likely scenario involves a picture taken through an open window or door.
After all, the Enquirer has been working on this story for months and it knew in advance what room he’d be in. They may even, as someone pointed out, have had inside help. It would be weird if they DIDN’T have incriminating pictures.
Infidoll on August 6, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Looks like Sims people to me.
misterpeasea on August 6, 2008 at 4:52 PM
“Shhhhhh, it’s a photoshop. This is me” ~ ~ John Edwards
Entelechy on August 6, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Edwards still loses. He can’t sue because someone else was photgraphed. He would have to admit that the guy in the hotel room holding the baby was him.
Chalk one up for the Enquirer.
Cicero43 on August 6, 2008 at 5:20 PM
So it’s not the John Edwards you thought you knew?
tree hugging sister on August 6, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Can you take a photo through those little spy holes in doors – from the outside?
Hendo on August 6, 2008 at 5:52 PM
The only thing I can say is why would the Enquirer use a fake photo?
They were in the lead, they owned the story, if the print a fake, they will lose what little credibility they had.
I will go as far to say, if I was Edwards, I would leak a photo from that night to the Enquirer, but in reality, it was a photo of mean and my last child with my wife.
Enquirer is just stupid enough to take the bait.
WoosterOh on August 6, 2008 at 6:10 PM
I should send ‘em this one.
Serr8d on August 6, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Someone made a nice point that when the Marla Maples/Ivanna Trump/Donald Trump confrontation in Aspen on the ski slopes took place the press was there and the question was “how did they know?!” Turns out Marla the Mistress had pre-arranged it. Seems mistresses sometimes don’t act accordingly.
Gee, darned if I know who might have snapped it. Did her change purse weigh more when she left the hotel than when entering?
Marcus on August 6, 2008 at 6:35 PM
I believe thats a spycam shot. A picture would appear that way if it took a wide angle shot and was cropped. If the Enquirer knew the exact date and who will drive them both to the Hilton, then they have an insider thats probably getting paid handsomely to have planted it, probably low level hotel employee who was approached by NE. What bothers me is on the blurry pic, theres several wide bleachy streaks on Silkys hair. Also the smaller clear pic, daggone it looks like a hospital gown and he’s holding an IV line, and the ‘yellow’ marking in back of him, doesnt look like a hotel room. Any follow up thoughts??
malkinmania on August 6, 2008 at 6:39 PM
and his neck in the smaller pic is about a foot long!
malkinmania on August 6, 2008 at 6:41 PM
This smells like the latest Liberal Trick:
1. Leak a fake photo,
2. get others to buy into it,
3. and then when it’s exposed as a fake, blame the Conservatives for spreading a lie!
landlines on August 6, 2008 at 6:55 PM
It could be a corner room, which would explain why there is a closed window blind behind him. Then you could still have the adjacent window blind open…through which the picture was taken.
And remember the confrontation with the Enquirer didn’t happen until after the rendezvous, so he may have thought that he snuck in unnoticed.
Vigilante on August 6, 2008 at 6:56 PM
The rendezvous happed at like 9:30 PM, the Sun had set.
WoosterOh on August 6, 2008 at 7:02 PM
The Dems are already demanding Edwards explain before he loses a Convention spot.
Dawnsblood on August 6, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Has anybody here plunked down the $$$ and picked up a physical copy of the paper, which I imagine has more pix? And remember, the Enquirer is not likely to blow its entire wad (excuse me) on one issue. There’ll be followups with more photos.
seanrobins on August 6, 2008 at 8:48 PM
What must his wife be thinking?? She allowed him to use her cancer as a campaign funds generator and this is how he pays her back?
Ill never forget, on Edwards website, he had a link to email a card to his wife to wish her well. As soon as you hit the button to send, an email flew into your inbox soliciting donations to the campaign. All it was, was a bounce to solicit.
malkinmania on August 6, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Someone commented on another site that the text says the photo of Edwards closing the curtains is from last year in NY.
mikeyboss on August 6, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Allah- Room service and a $100 is all the Enquirer needed to get this pic.
Diogenes of Sinope on August 7, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Or is the Enquirer just messing with our heads?
OneGyT on August 7, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Hmmm, blurry hair would still look perfect…., doesn’t look perfect…
Kini on August 7, 2008 at 1:49 AM
What does Prince Charles have to say about this?
- The Cat
MirCat on August 7, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Whether these photos are legit or not, I tend to believe this story is true for three reasons.
1. The NE knows that Edwards is a litigation happy scumbag trial attorney and they went forward with the story anyway.
2. Edwards has yet to file suit for libel.
3. If Silky was innocent, he would already have released blood test results to prove it.
Wingo on August 7, 2008 at 1:11 PM
I agree, it’s been very quiet, not a peep.
Did he streak his hair??
AprilOrit on August 7, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I bet she was paid by the Enquirer to put the camera there…
She’s the type to play both sides of the fence.
AprilOrit on August 7, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »