Why Does the MSM Still Refuse to Actually Investigate The Jon Edwards Story?

Now that the main stream media has - finally - covered the story of John Edward's affair (but only after they had no choice), you would think that they would now critically look at Edward's claims in the interview. But no, despite two clearly smoking guns in the interview that strongly suggest Edwards is still lying.

WOODRUFF: Have you taken a paternity test?

EDWARDS: I have not, I would welcome participating in a paternity test. Be happy to participate in one. I know that it's not possible that this child could be mine because of the timing of events, so I know it's not possible. Happy to take a paternity test, and would love to see it happen.

WOODRUFF: Are you going to do that soon?

EDWARDS: I'm only one side -- I'm only one side of the test, but I'm happy to participate in one.

WOODRUFF: Has Miss Hunter said, she does not want to do this DNA test?

EDWARDS: I don't know what she has said.

Now was anyone surprised when Hunter then announced she would refuse to take a paternity test? Even when she is now claiming that a friend of Edwards is the father? Of course not. Even before she made that statement, Edwards' odd statement about the paternity test make it clear - to me at least - that a deal had already been made for her to refuse to take the test that would prove he is the father.

Second, the truly bizarre language he used to 'deny' the photo of him holding his baby was of him or the baby:

WOODRUFF: And that picture is absolutely you and you are holding that baby.

EDWARDS: The picture in the tabloid. I have no idea what that picture is.

WOODRUFF: But you've seen it right?

EDWARDS: I did see it and I cannot make any sense out of that. When I went to this meeting you've already asked me about, uh, I was not wearing a t-shirt, I was wearing a long-sleeved shirt with the sleeves rolled up. I don't know who that picture -- I don't know if that picture is me, it could well be, it looks like me. I don't know who that baby is, I have no idea what that picture is.

WOODRUFF: But are you saying you don't remember holding that child of Miss Hunter?

EDWARDS: I'm saying you asked me about this photograph, I don't know anything about that photograph, I don't know who that baby is. I don't know if the picture has been altered, manufactured, if it's a picture of me taken some other time, holding another baby -- I have no idea. I was not at this meeting holding a child for my photograph to be taken I can tell you that.

WOODRUFF: You did say you did meet her at a hotel in California.

EDWARDS: She was there, Mr. McGovern was present, and that's where the meeting took place.

WOODRUFF: But you don't remember a baby being there?

EDWARDS: No.

And I thought Bill Clinton's definition of 'sex' was convoluted. Here every statement seems to be qualified by saying what he doesn't know and doesn't remember. The only unqualified statement he makes seems to say that he was not at a meeting in order to have a photo taking of him holding a child; again, he appeared to not deny that he was at a meeting holding a child - just that that wasn't the reason why he attended the meeting. Or at least the was the best way I could translate that sentence into English.

Now the latest new information tonight - from a blog, of course (the Huntington Post) is the existence of an email that appears to prove the affair started far earlier than Edwards is now claiming it started. News that none of the MSM, of course, even though they likely had the same information - reported.

Now as for why we should care? Well, what John Edwards does is of little concern to me. But the fact that the traditional media taken the position that the American public needs to be protected from politically incorrect news should be of concern to everyone who believes in a free press in the country.