Many seem to be of the opinion that the national press corp doesn't like John Edwards. Which I can understand as as I don't much care for him myself. However since I don't have a really strong feeling about him or any major factual basis for my dislike I keep it to myself. Hence, I originally blew off the idea until I read this today from the NY Post
EDWARDS GOT RICH HURTING THE POOR
by Charles Hurt
Trailing in the polls, John Edwards spent the past week telling the poor and downtrodden how much he cares about them.
He even insisted that his Kennedy-esque "poverty tour" was not part of his campaign to capture the White House.
Yeah, just like all those years he spent latched to the back bumper of an ambulance were all out of the goodness of his heart.
That and the $38 million fortune he amassed as the most successful personal-injury lawyer in North Carolina history.
What made Edwards such a brilliant attorney - and a pretty good politician - is his ability to look you in the eye while picking your pocket and convince you that's really not his hand on your wallet.
And so he stopped in the hinterlands of Wise, Va., to commiserate with the poor there who can't afford health care. Even if they could, they'd have to drive a hundred miles to find a doctor.
"We're here to help," Edwards assured them.
There are plenty of causes for this sad heath-care situation. But Edwards wasn't talking about one of the biggest causes - the cause he is among the most responsible for.
"The primary factor is liability insurance," said Dr. Stuart Weinstein, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Iowa. "It's either too expensive in areas like that or simply not available anymore."
Virginia's medical-liability insurance rates - driven largely by the very types of lawsuits that made Edwards a multimillionaire many times over - have more than doubled in three years, according to the nonpartisan Medical Liability Monitor.
In Edwards' home state, those premiums quadrupled. As a result, doctors have fled rural areas or quit practicing altogether.
Here to help?
No, thanks.
So it seems that there may be something to the claim as Chucky didn't once bother to quote a source, cite a reference, or provide communication frequencies to the mothership that told him all of this. I know the NY Post doesn't specialize in things like truth, accuracy, or reason but come on. What I do know is that the NY Post isn't brave enough to go where no press has gone before ( thereby risking a libel or slander suit). So maybe there is something to the claim.Bloggers usually state their biases either up front or over the course of time but MSM journalists(outside of editorials) usually don't and aren't required to. Those biases were first recognized by the right but the blatant lack of professionalism the media has sunk to over the past few years have made it apparent that "objective journalism" is in real peril. (No, not the Castle Arghhh! type of peril.)
The anti-Edwards bias is just the latest example of that. We all need to make a point of calling BS on the press whenever we find it even if it isn't to our political advantage otherwise the press will never have cause to change. The majority still rely on the MSM for candidate information and an ill informed electorate is a greater threat to true democracy than all of the hanging chads in Florida.
|