Is The Media Over The Top On John Edwards and His Affair?

The Catholic Political Blogsphere is discussing the Edwards thing. You know the affair issue that the MSM would not touch , that blogs at certain Publications were told not to discuss , while it was being exposed all over the place on the net.

VOX NOVA has a piece this morning . It is rare I disagree with Freddie over at Southern Appeal but I do with his post On John Edwards. He say in part:

I don’t care for John Edwards. Never have, and probably never will. That having been said, the MSM’s over-the-top coverage of Edwards’s admission that he had an extramarital affair is beyond ridiculous.
Look, the man finally admitted his sin (as he should have), and he is clearly devastated by this very public humiliation. So drop it already. He’s not the dem nominee, and he now has no chance of being Obama’s veep. As such, there’s no need to continue kicking this guy while he is down; if for no other reason than his wife and children have certainly done nothing to deserve this kind of unrelenting scrutiny. I, for one, take no joy in John Edwards’s personal failings, and my thoughts and prayers are with his family during this difficult time.

First let me say I agree with the second parapgraph to a great extent ( about kicking him while he is down etc, but I have no idea what he is talking about when he say MSM's Over the Top Coverage. I mean we are just in day 2!!!

Also the issue for many of us is the the sensational aspects of this but the FACT of the MEDA COVER UP for months and months. That is the real issue that has got people upset , and that really should not go away. That needs to be examined.

You think the Hillary folks are not going through a lot of what ifs today?

The Anchoress mentions this at a very fair post Edwards: We stumble over lots of things. She says in part ( an dbe sure to check out her full post):

I’m late to the news, but then I hadn’t been following the Edwards-affair story; I generally don’t pay a lot of attention to these salacious details about a politician, because while they’re sensational, people do tend to forget that there are always hurting spouses and children involved, and it usually goes too far.

I think I did mention somewhere, in passing, that once again, the press has been curiously incurious about the behavior of a Democrat when they would have taken a similarly-behaved Republican to the cleaners. And then they wonder why the press polls lower than the congress, which is standing at an approval figure of 9%

John Edwards’ betrayal of his wife is a private affair - to a point - once it’s out there, though, it’s “out there.” In refusing to report a story once it was “out there” the press committed a kind of betrayal, too - one that breaks the public trust just as surely as Edwards broke a private one. That, to me (and many others) was always the bigger story. Remember, had it not been for Drudge, Newsweek would have spiked Isikoff’s story on Clinton and Monica, too. Another story I didn’t like, but which told us a lot about the press and how they treat different members of different parties.

Again think of the Clinton folks this morning and how if the media did not hold off on this how just perhaps things might have been a tad different. Perhaps it would not have been but boy IOWA was so so so close.

Sadly perhaps We can not talk about the bigger story that such people as democrat Mickey Kaus over at SLATE has been trying to point out. (See his recent post I Lied. Can I Go To Denver Now? , Five Reasons the Media Must Cover the Edwards Scandal , Edwards: Hey, I Was "99% Honest" It's all the tabloid's fault!, and MSM Rebels on Edwards Oddly, some journalists want to know the truth.) without mentioning EDWARDS!!!

I wish no ill on Edwards . I very much agree with most of Freddie's statements. But I am not so ready to see the story on ethics and journalistic standards of the media, how they handled this ,and the needed discussion on that to be swept under the rug.