The Times ran with the story in February, despite there being no evidence.
Meanwhile, even earlier, last fall, there was some pretty good evidence - a pregnancy - that former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had had an affair with a campaign videographer. Oddly, neither The New York Times nor the rest of the lemmings that follow its lead thought it was news.
Now, it's quite obvious it was news. The woman has given birth and been quietly shuttled from expensive house to expensive house, from North Carolina to swanky California; she's been paid $15,000 a month by an Edwards supporter; and Edwards himself was caught leaving the woman's hotel room recently in the wee hours of the morning.
Finally, probably to come clean in time to ask for an ego-gratifying speaking part at the upcoming Democratic National Convention, Edwards approached ABC News to confess the affair while denying the child was his.
OK, so he claims the affair's over, he doesn't love her and the child isn't his. What's he doing sneaking into a hotel room to see her and another man's child?
Questions are also surfacing as to how kosher the woman's financial arrangements have been. We hope the IRS and the Federal Election Commission take a good, hard, long look.
We also wish the news media would take a good, hard, long look at their double standard: A fairly verifiable, recent affair by a Democratic presidential candidate isn't news, but an ephemeral, unproven, eight-year-old allegation against a Republican presidential candidate is front-page fodder. Wow.
Spin it however you want. Those are the facts.
Is it that Republicans tout values and morality, and therefore make their stumbles more newsworthy? Could be. Then again, few were harder on Bill Clinton's peccadilloes, or have made more pronouncements about morality, than John Edwards.
Where were the media on that hypocrisy?
Maybe in the same place that videographer was?