you don’t say

The New York Times barely even attempts to defend itself for failing to report on the John Edwards story [e.a.]:

A number of news organizations with resources far greater than The Enquirer’s, like The New York Times, say they looked into the Edwards matter and found nothing solid enough to report, while others did not look at all. …

The New York Times looked into the Enquirer reports last fall, though none too aggressively, editors said.

Bill Keller, the executive editor, said in an e-mail message that Mr. Edwards’s dark-horse status and the “added hold-your-nose quality about The Enquirer” contributed to the lack of interest by The Times and the mainstream media generally.

Tim Rutten, writing in the L.A. Times, smashes that reasoning to smithereens:

As pressure mounted on major newspapers to take some aspect of the unfolding scandal into account, editors and ombudsmen issued statements saying it would be unfair to publish anything until the Enquirer’s stories had been “confirmed.”

Well, there’s confirming and then there’s confirming. One sort occurs when an editor mutters, “Find somebody and have them make a few calls.” Then there’s the sort that comes when that editor summons an investigative reporter with a heart like ice and a mind like Torquemada’s and says, “Follow this wherever it goes and peel this guy like an onion.”

Suffice to say that the follow-up of the Enquirer’s story fell into the former category in too many newsrooms, including that of The Times.

Some of this reticence may have reflected a regard for the feelings of Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth, who has incurable cancer. There was, however, every reason to set that deference aside.

First, it was less than unlikely that Elizabeth Edwards was unaware of the allegations. (She says now she knew of the affair in 2006.) Second, Edwards’ name has surfaced as a possible running mate for Barack Obama and as a possible attorney general or Supreme Court nominee — posts in which character and candor matter. Finally, throughout his political career, Edwards has made his marriage a centerpiece of his campaigns.

The hypocrisy angle alone (Rutten’s point number 3) should have had the MSM on Edwards’s tail.

This was not the MSM’s finest hour, but John Edwards is certainly being dragged through the mud by them now, like he deserves.

He’s just gross—he’s got an excuse for everything, and he’s his own judge and jury. Yuck.

Kaus is still on the trail of the story, natch, and he’s not sparing Elizabeth Edwards’s feelings, because she has already named the villain in this story, and curiously it’s not her husband.

Update: Elizabeth Edwards is already up on Kos with a diary attacking “the present voyeurism.” … HuffPo’s Lee Stranahan, a former Edwards supporter, responds “Say It Ain’t So, Elizabeth: You Knew But Let Him Run.” Excerpt:

[I]f you’re an Edwards supporter, let me put this bluntly; if you gave John and Elizabeth Edwards time, money, support, or goodwill, they played you.

They made a conscious decision to make their relationship a focus throughout the campaign. That emotional goodwill you feel for them? They not only let you feel, they took actions and made statements specifically so you would feel it.

Now do you see why I hate politics?