For months and months the John Edwards affair was relegated to beyond Siberia at the New York Times. (Siberia is defined for you hicks here.)

Only six days ago, a bunch of Times guys explained to ombudsman Clark Hoyt why this was not a story for the NYT:

“I’m not going to recycle a supermarket tabloid’s anonymously sourced story,” said Bill Keller, the executive editor.

Then yesterday, a bruising Edwards story turned up on page one of the New York Times:

Lawyers’ Ties Hint at Extent of Hiding Edwards’s Affair

The Edwardses’ old-fashioned attempt to cover up the “mistake” of the golden boy by paying off both the mother of the child (usually a “bad girl” from the wrong side of the tracks) and the hapless guy who “volunteers” to take the hit for the golden boy reminds me of a whole lot of bad movies from the 1960s, or of Peyton Place.

This non-performance of their duties is beyond pathetic from the entire MSM.

Kaus has more, as always. He’s got ‘tude, too.

Meanwhile, MSM reporters–having deemed it unnecessary to report on whether a leading, active Democratic pol, third-place presidential candidate and likely cabinet official cheated on his ill wife while making a big show of his loyalty and then lied about it to the public –have found an angle sufficiently tedious to be worth discussing with their readers: a possible campaign finance violation!