L.A. Times blog ban on damaging, scurrilous rumors doesn't extend to celebs

Sweet catch by Media Blog bouncing off of Kaus’s item this morning about an alleged blackout of the Edwards rumors imposed by LAT management on its stable of bloggers. Why are “salacious speculations” about Silky verboten when they’re fine for Ferris Bueller? Simple ideological bias? The fact that Edwards potentially has more to lose than Broderick does, i.e. not just a marriage but a cabinet appointment? Or is it because the Enquirer report sounds relatively credible compared to the usual gossip rag rumor-of-the-day about celebrity dalliances that no one much takes seriously?

Also per Kaus, it looks like Fox News has picked up this ball and is prepared to run with it. Looming question: Given the sensational descriptions of a panicky, pale-faced Edwards trying to physically bar reporters from following him into the hotel men’s room, why on earth wouldn’t the Enquirer have posted any photos yet? The hotel guard quoted in the Fox story specifically remembers them “sticking a camera in his face.” If that’s true, they’re sitting on a gold mine for no good reason — which makes me suspect it’s not true or that it’s been blown wildly out of proportion. Also, remember that these rumors have been circulating publicly since late last year, before the Iowa caucuses that Edwards had a plausible shot at winning. If there’s something to them, why would party elders have let him get that far before pushing him out? If he’d won, built up momentum, and then swept to the nomination, the Democrats would be dead in the water right now.

Trending on HotAir Video
David Strom 5:21 PM on March 31, 2023