Has the mainstream media found its newest lie about John Edwards?
A Chicago Sun-Times news report claims that John Edwards was booed recently at the National Urban League presidential forum when he criticized the recent spat between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. A video of his comments, however, tells a different story. It's clear from the video on CNN's website that he was mostly applauded, and although there may have been a few groans or shouts in the audience, they seem as likely to have been in agreement with Edwards about the futility of the Clinton-Obama spat as otherwise.
Here's the video link:
Link to video.
Here's a quote describing this moment from the Chicago Sun-Times:
Similar to past debates, Rep. Dennis Kucinich -- who trails badly in the polls -- scored the most applause for his remarks, while former Sen. John Edwards stumbled into a round of audible "boos" when he criticized Obama and Clinton for their ongoing war of words over foreign policy.
Is the Sun-Times describing an event in a parallel universe?
UPDATES since the version of this diary I posted on MyDD earlier today:
Two eyewitness accounts from bloggers who were there say Edwards was NOT booed.
Clarkent in a comment on my diary on MyDD:
I was there. There were no boos. The groans were more like "Ooooo! Did he just say that?" Most of the people around me were saying "That's right, that's right" on most of the points John Edwards made in his speech, including the one on the Obama-Clinton spat.
EffieBlack on DU:
I was there in person. He was not booed. The audience did react to his point about Obama and Clinton, but it was not groans - it was more of a good-natured, "Oh, no he didn't!" It was very friendly.
All of the candidates who spoke were very well received. No one was booed.
All of this lends additional weight to Edwards' recent statements that "they" (presumably the corporate media, lobbyists, and the right wing) are trying to shut him up.
In fact, in a recent Pew Research poll that asked which presidential candidate people had heard about the most in the news lately, only 2% named John Edwards.
Hillary Clinton leads the pack as the candidate Americans have heard the most about in the news lately. More than four-in-ten (42%) name Clinton, while 22% name Barack Obama. Only 2% name John Edwards.
And, as Media Matters has pointed out, no less a media heavyweight than Marc Ambinder, one of the founders of ABC's The Note and a contributing editor to National Journa's Hotline, has admitted that the press is trying to "bury" John Edwards.
This week, Marc Ambinder explained why the media has covered John Edwards' grooming regimen so much and Mitt Romney's so little:
There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards.
Fairly or unfairly, there's also a difference in narrative timing: when the first quarter ended, the press was trying to bury Edwards. It's not so much interested in burying Romney right now -- many reporters think he's the Republican frontrunner.
Now, if reporters dislike a candidate, that's their business. But when they wage a relentless and petty campaign to "bury" that candidate, that's our business. All of us.
I think we can all agree that the media often creates unfair attack narratives against Democratic candidates, and ignores some candidates altogether. Since it seems clear that, as Ambinder stated, the media IS indeed trying to "bury" John Edwards, the question we all need to ask ourselves is "why?" I personally think John Edwards himself has answered that question quite well in the two videos I've linked to or embedded in this diary.
If you're tired of the corporate mainstream media trying to do our thinking for us, why not write a letter to the Chicago Sun-Times? Better yet, help make sure the media can't possibly silence John Edwards by making a donation to him through my ActBlue fundraising page.