THE SUMMER OF FALLEN HEROES

We Americans have learned some hard lessons lately about hero worship, creating cultural icons and expecting too much from our fellow humans. Exhibit A, of course, is Joe Paterno, the recently deceased former football coach at the embattled Penn State University. Paterno emerged, over decades, as the symbol of Penn State’s success, which was defined by its football program. Now we know that like many others at the university, Paterno was complicit in covering up child molestations perpetrated by one of his staff members, Jerry Sandusky. Paterno’s dead, Sandusky’s in prison, and the citizens of “Happy Valley,” PA, are left to clean up their mess. Oh, and those young boys who Sandusky molested? Well, they’re still young, but some of them are in young adulthood, and they are left to cope with what happened to them.

 In a scathing report issued by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, Paterno is singled out as one among several powerful figures at Penn State who not only knew of the molestations as far back as 1998, but made a decision to do nothing about it. Paterno, with 409 career victories - the most in NCAA history among major college coaches, chose to ignore the illegality and inhumanity of Sandusky’s behavior, and simply protect the institution. Here is ESPN’s initial report regarding Freeh’s findings: Therein is the problem with heroes. Once we elevate someone to idol status, it is up to them to fight their own ego and stay on the straight and narrow, and it’s up to us to monitor their integrity. Had anyone bothered to monitor Joe Paterno’s real life, rather than the one his fans created for him, it would have been clear that he was a flawed human being, just like the rest of us. Instead, he was assigned some type of mythic status that resulted in his carrying the secrets of his complicity to the grave.

When hero worship runs amok, even low lifers like former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards are able to become symbols of the American dream. Back in 2006, when Edwards came to New Orleans to announce his candidacy, I already had my doubts about him. He went to a site in the Ninth Ward, where the recent Hurricane Katrina had done the most damage, to announce his candidacy. It was a well-orchestrated, strategic move designed to show Edwards getting down with the people. Ostensibly, Edwards was there to help rebuild a badly damaged home. Witnesses who were there say he never so much as picked up a hammer. It was a photo op only.

He announced the candidacy, got in a black SUV with heavily tinted windows and off he went. It was then I knew Edwards was not to be placed on a pedestal. Back then, a close friend of mine told me she was very impressed with Edwards and planned to support his candidacy.

I told her I did not trust him, and if I were her I would wait it out and see if he reveals more of his true self. The rest, as they say, is history. The important point here is that Edwards amassed a lot of support for his candidacy. His all-American good looks and megawatt smile were, for some voters, mesmerizing. Had there been no Hillary Clinton in the race, chances are Edwards would have amassed huge support. He was already gaining endorsements from organized labor, and his campaign appearances were rock-star like. Later, by the time the emperor (Edwards) had no clothes, campaign observers were able to shed their blind admiration for the candidate and see that he was indeed not a hero. In the National Review, writer John Geraghty said it best in a piece he wrote about the Edwards campaign: “The Edwardses warns us of the risk we take when we “fall in love” with a politician — and I don’t mean in a romantic sense, but when we conclude “I can trust that person, I know that person” based on some interviews and speeches.”

But it is not always about trust. Sometimes it is simply about a hunger for leadership, a public need for a return to civil discourse and the potential for positive change. Enter Barack Obama, whose campaign for his first term brought back memories of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 election.

For my part, I believe he ran a pretty straightforward campaign, and while he said things people wanted to hear, I think he believed in what he said. The list of individuals and organizations that endorsed his candidacy is long and now legendary. And talk about a rock star – Edwards was a mere Neil Diamond next to Obama’s Springsteen. It had been a long time since a candidate had been so lionized by the voting public. After his momentous election day, he really had nowhere to go but down. And down he went. Depending upon where and what you read, Obama is currently way down in support among women, young people, Jews, even fellow Democrats. What no one seems to want to admit is that we, the voters, really set him up to fail. Nobody could have fulfilled all of the promise that we entrusted with him.

 It is the incessant need for heroes in our culture that seems to do us the most harm. And it keeps happening. Was Lance Armstrong the super-human athlete we needed him to be, or was he simply an example of better cycling through chemistry? We were the ones who decided that baseball-betting, tax-evading, umpire attacking Pete Rose

was a baseball hero. The list is never-ending: Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Anthony Weiner, Rod Blagojevich, Gary Hart, Tiger Woods, Eliot Spitzer, and of course, our two all-time favorite disgraced heroes: O.J. Simpson and Richard Nixon. All of the above lost public support, and some of them lost their careers, all because they screwed up in spectacular fashion. Well, not “all because.” Perhaps it was partly our fault that caused these and other public figures to fall. They all exercised questionable judgment, but we decided each was way out of our league, because we needed to look up to somebody.

The moral of this story is simple: Because someone can speak or sing or throw a ball or run fast or dazzle a crowd or win football games does not make him or her bigger or better than you. And once they fail to live up to your expectations, perhaps it is best to simply acknowledge they were not perfect. Following last week’s release of the Freeh report on Penn State, Joe Paterno’s family released a lengthy statement denying its claims. Towards the end, it said, “It can certainly be asserted that Joe Paterno could have done more. He acknowledged this himself last fall. But to claim that he knowingly, intentionally protected a pedophile is false.” Although the evidence shows otherwise, there may be some truth to the statement. In fact, Joe Paterno may simply have been protecting himself, and the institution that formed the basis of his lifelong identity. In the end, he was nobody’s hero—he was just a guy who knew how to coach football.

TRENDING: THIS WEEK’S BIG 5

A SALUTE TO PRIDE: For those still unconvinced that America’s social mores are changing, be aware that the U.S. Department of Defense announced it will hold an event to honor gay men and women who are serving in the military.  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says the Pentagon is ready to salute gay troops as part of Gay Pride Month, according to a report in the Associated Press.

Although the move is encouraging, especially to those who fought so hard to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” (which was struck down nine months ago), there are still challenges ahead. So far, the military does not afford health benefits to spouses or partners of gay service members. "The department is carefully and deliberately reviewing the benefits from a policy, fiscal, legal, and feasibility perspective," Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokeswoman said Thursday. One step at a time.

RECONSIDERING DEPORTATION:  The White House made the stunning announcement that many young illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as small children will be allowed to stay here. After the failure of Congress to pass the dream act, proposed legislation that would have allowed young immigrants to pursue citizenship, many were due for deportation. The Washington Post reports the criteria: They also must be 30 or younger and must have never been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

EDWARDS WALKS:  Just after turning 59 years old and just before his baby momma Rielle Hunter releases her tell-all memoir, John Edwards became a free man last week. The Department of Justice announced it will not retry Edwards on shady dealings with 2008 presidential campaign funds. The Edwards debacle ended in a mistrial last month, and this latest announcement is the last piece in a story that has been front page news for four years. While the conventional wisdom is simply that he got away with it, the judicial system has spoken. Up next? Edwards says he would like to go back in to practicing law with a focus on the underprivileged.  We wonder, however, if perhaps he will have to deal with that “life-threatening”illness" that caused his trial to be delayed earlier this year.

PONZI PUNISHMENT:  His name never quite became as widely known as Bernie Madoff, but Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme ran a close second to Madoff’s $18 billion caper. Stanford’s story will make for a great movie someday, complete with his high-flying lifestyle, financed to the tune of $2 billion with the investment money of his clients. Those clients were under the impression that their money was safely and wisely invested in profit-making financial instruments. The inevitable movie will likely also show how Stanford became a national hero on the island of Antigua, where much of his financial operation was headquartered, how he was almost killed in a prison fight, and how to the end he declared he was “not a Ponzi schemer, but just a successful businessman." His protestations nothwithstanding, the New York Times reports this week Stanford, 62, was sentenced in Federal District Court to 110 years in prison. By the way…our choice to play Stanford in the movie? John Lithgow.

OLD MEDIA….MEET NEW MEDIA:  The New York Times announced it will partner with Buzzfeed for Democratic and Republican convention coverage.  Why does this matter? Because it clearly shows that old line journalism acknowledges there is a significant place for new media when it comes to the biggest stories.  Buzzfeed, an online entity known primarily for pop culture coverage, is nonetheless far more advanced in streaming media than the New York Times. Buzzfeed also “gets” social media, which is an area the Times is still learning. They can learn from each other, and hats off to the Times for reaching out to such a new player in the media industries. It shows the Times is willing to step up to the ever-increasing demands of an Internet-savvy consumer base.

TRENDING: THIS WEEK'S BIG 5

ROLLER COASTER WEEK FOR ZIMMERMAN: The fallout from the Trayvon Martin case continues. This week, George Zimmerman's medical records were uncovered by ABC News, revealing that Martin’s accused killer indeed had a broken nose after the incident. He also had two black eyes and a cut on the back of his head. That would be encouraging news for the defense, were it not for another report this week that the FBI is considering charging Zimmerman with a hate crime. Orlando’s WFTV, the local ABC affiliate, reveals that if these new charges are brought against Zimmerman, he would be eligible for the death penalty.

 FACEBOOK’S IPO MAY TOP $16 BILLION: By mid-week, Facebook had upped its initial public offering to what could make the company’s value skyrocket to $16 billion. That would make it the fourth largest IPO in U.S. history. What happens when NASDAQ trading begins on Friday will reveal whether investors think the price is too high. Meanwhile, General Motors announced it is pulling $10 million worth of advertising from Facebook’s site. No explanation so far, but speculation ranges from not enough bang for the buck to negotiations that simply soured. Whatever the reason, it’s not good timing for Facebook to lose a major player.  

JP MORGAN CEO SURVIVES LOSS: Jamie Dimon,(left) the CEO of JP Morgan, gets to keep his job and his $23 million annual salary, even though the investment firm revealed a stunning $2 billion loss this week. At the annual shareholders meeting, Dimon was retained as CEO. The company’s troubles are far from over, however, with a rumored FBI probe and the SEC hovering. Even worse, the shareholders are rebelling en masse, filing lawsuits alleging the firm took unreasonable risks with their cash. Still, here's the big question: How does Dimon keep his throne when JP Morgan Chief Investment Officer Ina Drew gets fired? Answer: No mystery there: life in corporateland just ain't fair.  

EDWARDS DEFENSE RESTS: One of the most high-profile jury trials in recent memory came to an abrupt halt this week, as the John Edwards defense team rested their case without calling Edwards or Rielle Hunter to the stand. It was widely reported that Edwards’ daughter, Cate Edwards would be called by the defense, but she was not. Legal pundits now theorize that the prosecution did not prove their campaign contribution abuse claims beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that the defense quit while it was ahead. Some say a verdict could be forthcoming by the weekend.  

ALLEGED: MS COP-IMPOSTER KILLING MOTORISTS: What do you do if you are pulled over by a law enforcement officer in an unmarked car?

In Mississippi, you should probably keep driving. Northern MS authorities suspect a series of highway deaths may be attributed to a man posing as a police officer who directs motorists to pull over and then shoots them. Click here for details.

THE BAD, BAD BOYS OF 2011

You have to hand it to a guy who resigns from his candidacy for President of the United States by quoting a Pokemon movie. Herman Cain appeared in front of his would-be new campaign headquarters on Saturday, to announce that he will “suspend” his campaign. Then he steps down from the stage with Motown music playing in the background. There was barbecued food and general revelry, as if it were Cain announcing his candidacy, rather than ending it amidst various allegations of sexual wrongdoing.

Cain’s timing is perfect: His hijinks become the closing bookend for a year when bad boys around the globe were hogging the headlines with their own sexual junior highisms. I mean come on: Congressman Anthony Weiner was sexting women from the gym, while considering a run for Mayor of New York City, just as his wife found out she’s pregnant. And his antics were tame compared to bad boys like Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former head of the International Monetary Fund who stands accused of forcing a New York hotel housekeeper to have sex with him.

Bad boys are just bad boys, no matter what they do for a living or how much power they crave in their professional lives. And their egos generally somehow enable them to maintain their high profile public personas, convincing themselves that nobody will ever know about their duplicitous lifestyles. It really is stunning how not one of them seems to understand that privacy in public life is now history. It does not exist. A half century ago, JFK and his brother Bobby Kennedy could each take their turns having sex with Marilyn Monroe, and even the reporters who knew about it wouldn’t dare reveal it. But that was then.

Fast forward to 2011 and we’re still waiting for justice to be served in the case of John Edwards (below, right), the sleazebag scandal monger from the last presidential campaign. Edwards, you will recall, allegedly funneled money from his campaign to one Rielle Hunter, his secret squeeze who actually bore their daughter. While the wheels of justice turn as slowly as possible, we’ve also had to live through the very public battle over the sex tape he and Rielle made during the campaign. Sex tape. Presidential candidate. Welcome to 21st century America.

But 2011’s main scandal players were not limited to the U.S. Silvio Berlusconi, the three-time prime minister of Italy finally resigned a few weeks ago. His departure follows various periods where his name was attached to words like mafia, prostitution, tax fraud, perjury and embezzlement. But our favorite Silvio charge has to do with his alleged sex for cash scandal with an underage Moroccan dancer named Ruby Rubicouri (you simply cannot make this stuff up). Miss Ruby met the Prime Minister when she was working as a dental hygienist and he was being treated after being attacked with a marble statue by a disgruntled citizen.

All of it begs the obvious question: Are men innately pigs? Edwards was married to a woman who was fighting stage four breast cancer when he got Rielle Hunter pregnant. One of Cain’s accusers claims they were in a car headed for his corporate headquarters, when he pulled over and ran his hand up her skirt – kind of like a junior high boy might do to live out his masturbatory fantasy. I guess it depends on your definition of “pig.” Was John Edwards simply a pig disguised in matinee idol’s good looks and great suits? Was Silvio Berlusconi (below, left) an Italian pig whose reported multi-billions caused him to believe he was invincible? The Italian version of Teflon Don, you might say.

There are those who say both politics and sex are all about power. Nothing more. Nothing less. Maybe rich and powerful men simply cheat more richly and powerfully than their average Joe counterparts. But interestingly, they only get away with it until they don’t get away with it. The other day a female comic on TV said, “When was the last time we heard rumors like the ones we’re hearing about Herman Cain that did not turn out to be true?” Where there’s smoke and all that, you know. She’s right. There isn’t much you could say to me that would convince me that Herman Cain is not a pig. A more respectable pig would come forward and say, “I did it and I’m bowing out of the race.” Instead, Cain came forward and said ‘I didn’t do it, but I’m bowing out of the race for my family’s sake.’ And he said all this just as people who are close to his family have come forward to reveal the Cains are not exactly the Cleavers.

Cain, Edwards, Weiner (below, right), Berlusconi and their Hollywood counterparts such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ashton Kutcher are simply high profile examples of arrogance personified. Memo to all of the above: We citizens out here are not going to get real involved in your behind-closed-door dalliances unless you throw it in our face. And every time you start to feel a bit cocky about how much you are getting away with, you need to remember that you’re not getting away with it. We may as well be seated theatre style in your bedroom. Why is it that we get that but you don’t? And why is it that you can’t simply study the legacy of people like David Vitter, Bill Clinton and Eliot Spitzer to truly know that it’s only a matter of time until things come tumbling down? Way down.

Listen, combine one part predatory mass media with one part puritanical American consciousness with one part “Gotcha” and you’re nothing more than Herman Cain – powerless, jobless and without the adulation you crave so mightily. It’s a predictable recipe for public humiliation and ultimate dreaded anonymity. It is more about arrogance than ignorance. And it repeatedly leads to men who are in the prime of their careers predictably and rapidly disappearing. Just ask John Edwards who these days kicks around his South Carolina mansion worrying about whether he will go to jail. It’s a slippery slope boys.

POLITICAL BAD BOYS UPDATE

If you have followed the John Ensign story over the past couple of years, you can now chalk him up as one more elected official who has walked away in disgrace. Ensign (right), the Republican Senator from Nevada, resigned as he was under heavy investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. Allegedly, Ensign had an affair with a campaign worker, and steered big contracts of some sort in her husband’s direction. Sleazy and convoluted as it was, Ensign had managed to hold on to his Senate seat, until this week. After Ensign announced the resignation, the two Senators who head up the Ethics Committee, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) issued a terse statement which said only this: “Senator Ensign has made the appropriate decision.”

Here is how you can read those words – “has made the appropriate decision” – with some X-ray vision. The Ethics committee was probably about to unload some real dirt on John Ensign. He was informed of this and decided to bow out. By doing that, the Ethics Committee is not required to release the information about him. Whatever the case, Nevada is sick of the John Ensign story, as evidenced by a recent column in the Las Vegas Review-Journal in which writer Jane Ann Morrison says of Ensign’s announcement, "This is all about his ego, his arrogance and saving his reputation. It's about the threat of more embarrassing publicity and his inability to raise money.”

Unlike other politicians, Ensign can wipe his brow and breathe a sigh of relief. He may have dodged an embarrassing bullet. (The Ethics Committee still has the right to release its findings, but most likely will not). Here’s the question, though: Why do so many politicians and government officials put themselves in the line of fire? Why do they continually believe they can get away with it, whatever “it” is in their individual cases. Sometimes (okay, most times) it’s sex. Other times it’s political shenanigans. And sometimes it’s greed. But every time it is about power. There is something about D.C. style power that seems to overwhelm some men. Men who otherwise seem like they’ve got a level head on their shoulders just lose their sense of order and right and wrong.

Since we’re talking about once-powerful bad boys, here’s the update on John Edwards (left), the 2008 would-be Democratic candidate for President, who allegedly steered campaign funds in the direction of his mistress, who later became the mother of his fourth child. Misuse of campaign funds is a Federal offense, so he is being investigated on that level right now. Edwards, who carried on the affair as his wife was dealing with terminal cancer, was later outed by the National Enquirer and that was the end of his political career. Edwards, now a widower raising his and Elizabeth Edwards’ children, faces possible jail time if convicted. Recent reports indicate Edwards is terrified of going to prison, to the point of being suicidal. Hell of a guy, that John Edwards. He has two small children who only months ago lost their mother, and he considers taking his own life, so that the kids will have lost both parents.

If some of these scandals seem to drag on forever, it may be that the alleged perpetrators of wrongdoing keep doing wrong. Take Jesse Jackson (right), for example. Ten years ago, married family man Jackson had an affair with a staffer that produced a child. Much like the Edwards affair, there were ongoing reports of money paid to the child’s mother for questionable services. Now, a decade later, a gay male staffer has filed a discrimination suit against Jackson, claiming, among other things, that he was ordered to bring women to Jackson’s hotel room, and then clean up the room after Jackson had sex. Oy. Sleazy, huh? The Windy City Times detailed the charges in an explosive article last week. The above-mentioned charge is tame in comparison with other charges in the discrimination complaint. In fairness, it should be said that Jackson has a history of supporting gay rights, but as mentioned several paragraphs ago, so often it’s about sex. And as we all have learned, where there’s smoke….well, you know the rest.

The old saying goes like this: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." That phrase has unknown origins, but it sure says a lot. What are these guys all about, really? Do they seek power positions to satisfy their other needs in life, or does power truly corrupt absolutely? I guess we’ll never know, but the evidence sure stacks up if you just keep your eye on politics, big religion and big business.

NATIONAL ENQUIRER & PULITZER PRIZE: MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?

Here are nine worlds I never thought I would write:

The National Enquirer is up for a Pulitzer Prize.

Before I ask you to wrap your mind around those nine words, let’s review a little history about the Enquirer. First, it is interesting to note that the paper has been publishing continuously since 1926. I won’t bore you with the long history of the paper, but if you’re so inclined you can read about it here.

The Enquirer claims it has a circulation of over a million, and that more than nine million people actually read it each week. Those figures are probably high, especially in light of the fact that in the last couple of years the paper has imposed five-day unpaid furloughs on its employees. Papers do not do that unless finances are tight, and finances are not tight unless advertising is down. So, like other newspapers in the country, it is clear that the Enquirer is not cash-rich right now. However, as it turns out, there would be other kinds of riches awaiting the much-maligned Enquirer.

Who could have predicted it would take the sexual dalliances of a Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 to elevate the gravitas of what most Americans considered a rag? Up until candidate John Edwards gave in to his carnal desires with a campaign worker, the Enquirer had a loyal audience who couldn’t resist its salacious editorial offerings, but who rarely really believed much of it. When it was revealed that the Enquirer was right about Edwards, suddenly a lot of us started scratching our heads in disbelief. Then the mainstream media slowly started reporting the story, as if they had initiated it. But the Enquirer was relentless in its coverage, which its owners today say they never paid for. Checkbook journalism had become synonymous with the National Enquirer, but not this time. It was not until the second week in August, 2008, when Edwards fessed about the affair on ABC News that any mainstream publication dared print the story.

All of this brings us back to the nine words: The National Enquirer is up for a Pulitzer Prize – the highest and most prestigious award in journalism. As one who still recalls the days when the Enquirer was running stories about psychic nuns giving birth to aliens, this news is surreal. But it brings forth a number of provocative questions: Why did mainstream media resist their journalistic obligation to pursue the story when the evidence presented itself? If we accept the Enquirer’s contention that no money was paid for information, how did they break the story? And why will they not reveal how they initially got turned on to the story? Should they? They are not legally bound to do so, but from an ethical standpoint, before the Pulitzer board makes a decision, perhaps the Enquirer should come clean about how and from where this information was obtained.

Specifically, the Enquirer is up for investigative reporting and national news reporting awards. As a guy who was trained in traditional journalism, and one who today teaches journalism in a new media world, here is what I think: The Enquirer, despite its tactics, reputation and blatant resistance to conventional journalistic techniques, apparently 'gets' the new world of media, more than say, The Washington Post or The L.A. Times. The new world demands immediacy and stretching the limits of privacy. Why wouldn’t the mainstream media pursue this story? Simple. They didn’t go after the Edwards story because they underestimated the public’s hunger and demand for insider information about high profile people. Some of them probably considered it, but not one of them had the cojones to publish anything about it, simply because the only source of information at the time was the National Enquirer.

Like it or not, we are now in the high tech universe of TMZ.com and Perez Hilton. The more advanced the technology becomes, the more the public expects to know. As far back as 1920, when Photoplay Magazine became the first real movie fan magazine, the public slowly developed its desire to know the inside story of its cultural icons. By the 1970s when People Magazine debuted with Mia Farrow on the cover, that hunger for juicy details seemed to peak. But the real peak had to wait another 25 years or so for the Internet to evolve. Today, celebrities, politicians and other high profile types can essentially kiss their privacy goodbye. Even when they sue for intrusion of privacy, they generally lose, unless they can prove a case of appropriation of their name or likeness. Unfortunately for the John Edwards of the world, appropriation does not extend to news coverage.

So, will the Enquirer win a Pulitzer for its coverage of the John Edwards baby daddy scandal? In every category that is awarded, the prize description includes the words “distinguished example.” Was the Enquirer’s reporting a distinguished example of investigation or national news? I have a feeling the Pulitzer board will not see it that way. After all, we do know some details of the Enquirer’s methods here. Reporters apparently followed Rielle Hunter, Edwards’ lover, to her obstetrician’s office in order to secure photos of the pregnant woman. Reporters cornered John Edwards in a men’s room at the Beverly Hilton Hotel to confront him about the allegations of the affair and paternity. The paper did indeed pay for information about the John Edwards affair – even if they claim they did not pay for information that led to the exact stories that are up for a Pulitzer Prize. So, if we hold that the word “distinguished” refers to excellence, eminence or quality standards, it would seem the National Enquirer doesn’t really cut it.

Still, don’t forget this is not your father’s media world. Remember, the anti-journalist, Matt Drudge was the first reporter to publish the name Monica Lewinsky with initial details of Bill Clinton’s transgression. He was right and mainstream media followed his lead. Further, TMZ.com was the first media outlet to report that Michael Jackson was dead. The news was accurate and then CNN jumped on the bandwagon. The National Enquirer correctly reported in 2003 that Rush Limbaugh was addicted to painkillers, and this followed the paper’s 2001 breaking news that Jesse Jackson had fathered a love child. Do not underestimate alternative, non-mainstream or new media. The truth comes at you from odd places these days, and whether those places are worthy of traditional industry awards remains to be seen. I, for one, am on the edge of my seat.

POLITICAL SCANDALS: THE POWER OF HINDSIGHT

You may recall when the webisodes Rielle Hunter shot of John Edwards campaign became public. If you have not seen them, now is the time to watch them. Now that we are on the entire other end of John Edwards’ distasteful journey, it is fascinating to listen to the now-broken man speak when he was at the height of his personal and political power. Edwards will long be remembered as a sleaze monger disguised a do-gooder.

Hunter’s brief glimpses into Edwards’ life are ironically set to a background of Boyd Tinsley’s song, “True Reflections.” The lyrics:

“When you look into a mirror
Do you like what‘s looking at you?
Now that you see your true reflection
What on earth are you gonna do?”

Here is Webisode #1:

You can see the other webisodes on Youtube. The running themes seem to be Edward’s dedication to the common man and his efforts at international humanitarianism. You will see him in Uganda deep into a refugee camp. And all of it is delivered with his trademark Southern charm and great hair. Now that we are able to see Edwards for the person he really is, these videos, shot by the woman who would ultimately bear his child while he was still married to Elizabeth Edwards, are revelatory in the extreme.

Edwards was more actor than public servant, and certainly more manipulative than authentic in his quest for the Presidency. It is probably his adept approach to deception in his public and private life that made him such a skilled trial lawyer back in the day. In 2007, for example, he renewed his wedding vows with Elizabeth, at the same time he was carrying on his affair with Hunter. Sociopath? Watch the webisodes and you be the judge.

Listen, if you’re a writer/reporter like me, John Edwards is the gift that just keeps giving. Just in the past couple of weeks, all of the following reports have surfaced: that the FBI has a copy of the alleged sex tape between Edwards and hunter – for what, nobody knows; that Elizabeth Edwards (left) is threatening to sue Edwards’ former assistant, Andrew Young, for “alienation of affection,” claiming he contributed to the problems in her marriage to John; that John allegedly struck Elizabeth in the final argument that led to their legal separation; that John has allegedly proposed to Rielle Hunter; that Rielle Hunter allegedly had an affair with actor Jeff Goldblum while she was having an affair with Edwards, and told Goldblum the baby could be his. Oy.

So, as I’ve written here in the past, we voters need to know more about our candidates’ personal lives. Edwards' proclivity for dishonesty, deception and manipulation certainly would have come into play in his presidency, had things gone that far. Elizabeth Edwards reported temper would certainly have affected staffers in the White House, had she become first lady. Edwards’ arrogance in believing he could carry on the affair with Hunter (right) right under the collective nose of the American people would not bode well for other self-serving scams he may have pulled at our expense.

I have heard enough about how media pries too deeply into the personal lives of political candidates and elected officials. If you still believe that, let me just present the following words for your consideration: Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, William Jefferson, David Vitter, David Paterson, Newt Gingrich.

I rest my case.

DECEPTION: The Lessons of John Edwards

When I think of John Edwards, I am reminded of a 1967 film, “Guide for the Married Man.” In one scene, Ed (played by Walter Matthau) tells Paul (played by Robert Morse) that if his wife ever accuses him of cheating, “Deny, deny, deny.” Denial and deception are what John Edwards is all about. This week’s John Edwards headline (there’s something new every week about this guy) is that Elizabeth met the lovechild, and finally decided she had had enough. They’re now legally separated.

This is one of the more extreme stories of our time. We’ve seen sleaze and/or really poor judgment before (Bill Clinton?), but the American public has not had the John Edwards experience until now. Edwards was running for President as Mr. America, when behind the scenes he referred to some of his constituents as “fat rednecks,” instructed an aide to “handle it” when he found out his mistress was pregnant, and later made a sex tape with her. All of this occurred just as Elizabeth Edwards was battling cancer. Somehow John Edwards convinced himself that we Americans would not see beyond the façade. We did. We do. He’s a low life.

What’s the lesson here? I think there are all kinds of messages that come through this story. For one thing, if you’re a high profile person today, and you consciously decide to do something stupid, the prolific nature of digital media is probably going to get you.The very media you depend on to market yourself to the country will be that which sends you into obscurity. This is just the story that media hungers for today. It has all of the ingredients: Politics, sex, tragedy, cheating, lying and deception. You could not make this up. Edwards underestimated the media, the risk he was taking and the collective wisdom of the American people.

But there are bigger lessons to be learned here for American voters. Edwards had the kind of movie star good looks and Clintonesque charisma that intoxicated voters. He preached a grass roots, populist-like agenda so appealing to middle America. He seemed to be ‘one of us,’ even though we knew of his $400 haircuts, 25,000-square-foot estate and multi-millionaire status. None of it mattered when we saw him announce his candidacy in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans outside of a house he was helping to restore from Hurricane Katrina. The lesson is age old: look beyond the obvious. What is behind the carefully coiffed and rehearsed image? As voters, we may have to demand a more intrusive investigation of our candidates. The new age debate about privacy may have to come to a halt at campaign time, and we may simply have to insist that we know more of a candidate’s personal life.

Had we done more digging, we would have uncovered the fact that Edwards was something of a high class ambulance chaser in his earlier life. He was a plaintiff’s attorney who represented a number of people who brought suits against doctors and hospitals after their children had been born with defects due to alleged mistakes made in the delivery room. Edwards made tens of millions of dollars with these cases, and legend has it that he was very dramatic in the courtroom. The story is told that in one of his closing arguments, he actually brought up the subject of his own son, who was killed in a car accident at age 16. There wasn’t a dry eye in the jury box. With his distinctive Southern accent and ability to deceive, Edwards was a powerhouse attorney, and one who collected one-third of each plaintiff’s favorable judgment. In some cases those judgments went as high as $25 million. You know that guy in your own community who goes on TV and says, “Hurt in a car accident? Get all you deserve and get it fast?” Essentially, that was John Edwards, and some of us might have cringed at his aggressive, manipulative courtroom tactics.

Had the media or even private citizens groups dug a bit deeper into Edwards’ personal life, we may have discovered the fact that Elizabeth Edwards was as ambitious as or more so than John. Now we know how badly she wanted to be First Lady. So badly that she stumped smilingly with Edwards on the campaign trail, never letting her image or her demeanor belie her rage about the affair she knew Edwards was having with Rielle Hunter. In the much ballyhooed, recently released book “Game Change,” authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann claim, “…that there was no one on the national stage for whom the disparity between public image and private reality was vaster or more disturbing.” Andrew Young, the aide who Edwards enlisted to pretend he was the father of Hunter’s child, paints a duplicitous picture of Elizabeth in his new book, “The Politician.” She comes off as temperamental, controlling and prone to histrionics. A recent piece in the New York Times seems to further that impression.

Does it matter to us, the voters, if Edwards cheats on his wife and lies about it, and that his wife is not what she seems? It does. We were supposed to have learned our lesson years ago from the Richard Nixon debacle. As it turns out, his own words revealed that he was racist, misogynistic and anti-Semitic. We needed to know that, but we didn’t until he was dead. These are not the John Kennedy days, when a Presidential candidate can carry on secret trysts with lots of women and the press knows about it, but does not report it. We’re in the digital age. The press owes us full disclosure, and deep investigation. And we owe ourselves the discipline to pay attention to a candidate’s behavior and character. Had the stars aligned themselves just a bit off center in 2008, John Edwards would be President of the United States right now, moral warts and all. Presumably his secret squeeze and love child would be safely ensconced in an undisclosed location. Elizabeth Edwards would likely be berating the White House staff, just as she reportedly did to her husband’s campaign staff. And who would suffer most for their personal indiscretions and personality flaws? That would be you and me.

THE HIGH PRICE OF A GOOD STORY

By now, even the most apathetic media consumer among you knows that journalism is in a transitional period. Traditional media is not faring so well – newspaper circulation is at record lows, magazines have folded, network TV is constantly trying to find new ways to keep you tuned it as you gain more and more cable options. The most valuable capital to trade today is information, and the juicier the better. But with the intense competition among news and information outlets, how can anybody be sure to get the juice fastest and first? Well, to paraphrase an old adage – money talks and ethics walks.

It’s called “checkbook journalism,” and it seems to be more and more prevalent, even with old-line networks. As a journalist and a guy who teaches media ethics, I’ve been keeping a close eye on this for a few years now, but last week my eye almost got poked out (figuratively), when I heard that David Goldman and his son Sean were flown back to the states from Brazil on a jet chartered by NBC. If you are not familiar with the Goldman story, click here.

It is no coincidence that David Goldman (below left, pictured on the NBC plane with his son) sat down for a heart-to-heart with the Today Show’s Meredith Vierra just days after his return from Brazil. NBC paved the way with the free plane trip, and whatever other financial arrangements may have been made.
NBC denies it. The network claims its actions have been misinterpreted. The network spin goes like this: Goldman was booked for the Today Show interview before arrangements were made to fly father and son back to the U.S. It so happens NBC already had a jet chartered to bring it employees home for Christmas. A spokesperson for the network told Associated Press that the Goldmans were “invited on [the plane] as guests,” and the gesture had nothing to do with “booking strategy.”

Here’s my professional response to that: Uh-huh. Right.

Just days later, after man-child terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up Detroit-bound flight 253, the American public was introduced to Jasper Schuringa, the Dutch airline passenger who reportedly threw himself on Abdulmutallab and averted the disaster. Schuringa appeared on CNN (right) to detail his ordeal. CNN reportedly paid a handsome sum to obtain cell phone photos of the scuffle, and denies that the payment had anything to do with booking Schuringa for his appearance on the network. Uh-huh. Right.

Why does it matter, you might ask? So what if a news organization pays for information? After all, the National Enquirer has been doing it for decades and has never tried to hide it. And do not write the Enquirer off so fast, as many are prone to do. The Enquirer is the publication that broke the whole John Edwards baby-daddy scandal. More recently, the Tiger Woods adultery story first appeared in the Enquirer days before any other news organization picked up the story. Still, is there something inherently sleazy about paying for interviews or information?

In a word – yes. Like anything else, when you grease somebody’s palm for whatever product, service or information they can offer, you have leverage on how they offer it. What you media consumers need is truth. That’s the real business of journalism. But when the source of that truth is paid for information, some media organizations may be prone to persuade the source to tell the story in a way that will garner the greatest readership, viewership of online hits. Then the truth is no longer the truth. It becomes a product that can be shaped, twisted or distorted to suit the media organization’s purpose.

News organizations will tell you they don’t pay for stories or interviews. They will tell you that they do indeed sometimes pay “licensing fees” for the use of photos or videos. Anyone who works in the media industries knows those fees actually buy the story. And the public is now savvy enough to know there is some worth to what they have to offer. After the CNN interview Schuringa made it clear that he would not appear on any other broadcast without being paid. And, as you may have noticed, Schuringa has all but disappeared from view. That is because it came out that CNN had paid a “licensing fee” for the use of the cell phone photo. Then Schuringa became too sticky to reasonably touch, so other media organizations took a pass on using him.

The bottom line: Here is who loses the most when the highly questionable practice of checkbook journalism is employed – YOU. The real truth about the events that happen in your world is harder and harder to decipher, and once seemingly reputable journalists or media organizations start paying for information, that information is instantly sullied, and the truth you need exceeds your grasp.

SEX SCANDAL UPDATE

Oh don’t get excited. The headline is irresistibly seductive, and here you are. Unfortunately you’re not getting any sex here. It just seems like time to update some of our most tawdry political bad behavior stories. What’s John Edwards up to? Is Liz divorcing him? Why is David Vitter about to be investigated…again? And Senator John Ensign from Nevada – you remember: he’s the guy who allegedly had an affair with an ex-campaign aide and may have been the recipient of a little strong-arming by his paramour’s husband. (Very “David Letterman, right?) Ensign thought it would all just go away, but…it hasn’t. It’s all so trashy, isn’t it? And we hang on every word, don’t we? Go figure.

The Edwards epic just keeps gaining new layers. Now, The National Enquirer reports Elizabeth Edwards may divorce John Edwards. The new book by Andrew Young -- Edwards’ former aide who claimed paternity to Rielle Hunter’s child until he didn’t want to any longer—reportedly reveals Edwards may have had more campaign trail dalliances with more campaign workers. Oy. And let’s not get too journalistically snooty about the Enquirer. The Enquirer broke the Edwards story, and everything it has reported so far has been accurate.

I told people way back when, when Edwards was campaigning for president, that I did not trust him. For me, it started when he came to New Orleans, to the Ninth Ward, and did a live TV feed that showcased him “helping” rehab a house that was damaged by Katrina. Word spread through town pretty fast that as soon as the cameras were off, he put the tools down and got into a waiting black SUV and took off. Edwards was (and is) all image, and not enough substance. To his credit, he does some good work, even now. He is reportedly very active in a campaign called “Half in 10,” which aims to cut poverty in half in 10 years. He even made a public appearance on its behalf as recently as last week. And say what you will about the guy, it cannot be easy to make those appearances right now. You just never know when we pesky reporters are likely to ask him if he spread his DNA further than earlier reported. That’s what we do. We ask.

Meanwhile, guess who’s back in the public prurient consciousness for a minute -- David Vitter. He of the high priced Washington call girl scandal of a couple of years ago. How’s this: he calls for an investigation of ACORN after the scandal that suggested ACORN workers were counseling prostitutes. About five seconds after he comes forward with his outrage over ACORN, a group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington steps up to suggest Vitter himself should be investigated. After all, the group reasons, it seems likely that Vitter violated the state’s rule that says it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “commit a criminal act especially one that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.”

Do you love it or what? Vitter has never really appeared to be the brightest bulb in the room, but even he has to be scratching his head right now and asking himself what the hell he was thinking. Washington in 2009 is just high theatre. It’s got everything. Sex, scandals, cover-ups, under-the-table deals, power…it’s like Dynasty on acid.

John Ensign even looks like Blake Carrington from Dynasty. Suddenly, the seemingly dormant Ensign affair seems to be back in the headlines. It seems despite their earlier show of support, Ensign’s Republican cronies are abandoning him faster than a gaggle of feminists at a Chris Brown concert. Here’s the rub: The New York Times reports that Ensign will be investigated by the Justice Department, over allegations that not only did he get his secret squeeze’s husband a job, but that he may have had a severe conflict of interest when the husband, Douglas Hampton, started lobbying Ensign on behalf of his clients. Hampton was subject to a one-year delay in any lobbying efforts because he had been a top Congressional aide. According to the Times, preliminary whispers indicate the FBI may be involved with any potential investigation of Ensign.

All of this tawdry stuff causes one to think about two things: judgment and privacy. The online media explosion has created a new paradigm…well, maybe not that new. It seems now one can live a public life or a private life, but there are no gray areas in between. And since we all know that, one has to wonder how an experienced public figure – a legislator – can exercise such deplorable judgment. In the end, it’s about “getting away with it” for these guys. I just wish Edwards, Vitter, Ensign, et al would wise up and realize the last guy that got away with it was John F. Kennedy. The entire Washington press corps knew Kennedy was getting away with it and via their silence they aided and abetted. That was 1960. This is now. Are you listening boys?

BAD BOYS: SUMMER SLEAZEBAG EDITION

Why do the bad boys always seem to be badder in the summer? (Yes, I know, I said “badder.” Live with it). Who knows, but there seems to be a pattern. This summer has been particularly frisky and mischievous for some of the most high profile bad boys. And don’t get all huffy about the exclusion of uber-bad boys John Edwards, Michael Vick, Rod Blagojeich and Glenn Beck from this piece. They’re still bad. Real bad. It’s just that I have written about all three of them ad nauseum lately, so I chose to focus herein on some of their bad contemporaries.

Plaxico Burress will serve two years in prison, it was reported this week, after pleading guilty to one count of attempted criminal possession of a weapon. But here’s the rub: Burress shot himself in the leg with the gun. Unfortunately, the gun he was carrying was not licensed. So, the married father of one, with another on the way goes to prison, and even when he gets out, it is not a given that the one-time Super Bowl star will be back in the NFL. "This was not an intentional criminal act," attorney Benjamin Brafman said. "In my judgment, a two-year prison sentence is a very severe punishment." So, that would suggest what? That Burress unintentionally carried an unlicensed weapon into a crowded public place? Burress, 32, has a history of unlawful behavior, which the judge probably considered. He’s still charged with smashing into the back of a Broward County, FL woman’s car with his Mercedes. Not only hasn’t he settled anything with her, but he was driving without insurance. And let’s not forget his two separate domestic disturbance instances in 2008, when he was hit with a restraining order in his own home. I hereby charge Plaxico Burress with serial badness.

Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina just will not go gently into that private night. He insists on staying public. This week he addressed a luncheon group and once again apologized for his bad judgment and behavior in carrying on an affair with an Argentinian woman. His wife and kids have already moved out, followed by a September Vogue interview in which Jenny Sanford is not cutting her husband much slack – you know, because he’s bad. Sanford now admits his political career is over, but he insists on finishing out the remaining 16 months of his term. More bad judgment on his part? You be the judge. Here is what a lame duck looks and sounds like:


Dr. Conrad Murray is on track to be charged with manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson, according to a report from Fox News. Murray, who has admitted administering the intravenous anesthetic propofol to help Jackson sleep just hours before his death, says the truth will set him free. Hmmm. Since the truth is that the doctor gave Jackson a drug that virtually everyone in the medical community agrees is for use only in a surgical setting, one wonders how that might free him. So, why manslaughter and not murder? Possibly because there is nothing much in the doc’s background to suggest criminal patterns, except for some unpaid child support. And, it seems clear (so far, anyway) that it was not his intention to kill Jackson.

Senator John Ensign is the next in the long line of legislators who seem to believe that if they just don’t talk about their extra-marital sexual indiscretions, they whole thing will just somehow go away. However, Ensign, who admitted having an affair with the wife of one of his best friends, (both worked for Ensign), now comes forward to say he did nothing legally wrong. No mention of ethics or morals or any of that, just nothing legally wrong. Ensign, who was among the loudest legislators calling for Bill Clinton’s resignation during the Lewinsky affair, says there is a big difference between his situation and Clinton’s. I haven't done anything legally wrong. President Clinton stood right before the American people and he lied to the American people," Ensign said. Still, like Mark Sanford, Ensign keeps apologizing. And like our old friend David Vitter, he’s hoping the whole thing magically disappears.

I could go on – I mean I could talk about Jon Gosselin (oh, God, are we still talking about him?), or former NY Times reporter Jayson Blair. Blair is the guy who ruined his own career and brought down two of the most powerful men in the NY Times newsroom, when he fabricated stories a few years ago. Blair, long considered in journalism circles the worst of all bad boys, has taken on a new profession – life counselor. So Woody Allenish, no? Anyway, I’m not going into any great detail about that because anecdotal evidence suggests that you stop reading after about 700 words on a blog entry – we’re at 811 right now. So I lost many of you somewhere in the John Ensign paragraph. Damn. So much badness to report, and such short attention spans.

THE BAD, BAD BOYS OF SUMMER 2009

I have this theory about life that some of my friends and associates often find amusing. It goes like this: MEN CHEAT. As the years have gone by, I have added an addendum: POWERFUL AND/OR WEALTHY MEN CHEAT EVEN MORE. I don’t know about you, but I am beyond tired of hearing about married politicians having affairs, particularly those who have been so vocal about “family values.” Last week we were let in on Nevada Senator John Ensign’s tawdry tale, which definitely includes an affair, and possibly blackmail, payoffs and, oh well, you can pretty much write the rest, right? Today it’s South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, the married father of four who missed Father’s Day this year because he was in Argentina canoodling with his babe. Oh God, is anybody as over this as I am?

The Mark and John shows of the last couple of weeks are just more of the same in the ongoing drama that is Bill Clinton, John Edwards, et al. Oh, did I mention the most recent et al. includes a Miami priest named Father Alberto Cutie (I promise on all that’s holy that the guy’s last name is “Cutie”). Seems Fr. Cutie (below, left) was caught all cuddly on a public beach with his girlfriend. Oy. Men, in my view, like to see what they can get away with. In middle or post-middle age it gets the juices going, if you will, to have a woman who is willing to snuggle up and keep it on the down low. There is almost a script to which they adhere: First, they come up with multiple reasons to be away from home. At first, they keep their assignations very quiet and private. But as time passes, they become bolder and in some cases begin going out in public. Much more exciting that way, right? Reminder: Men like to see what they can get away with. Then, they get caught. Pretty much every time. The media, you know. Then there is the solemn, sometimes tearful press conference. Then the headlines.

I am not here to pass judgment on the sanctity or lack thereof of marriage. And I’m really not here to pass judgment on how anybody conducts his sex life. Believe me. I’m so not. But I do question the carelessness with which these guys treat their professional responsibilities. Today, it should be noted, a public watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed formal complaints with the Senate Ethics Committee and the Federal Elections Commission calling for investigations of Sen. Ensign (right).
As has been reported, the woman with whom Ensign had the affair was an employee of his. Why did her salary almost double during the period of their relationship? Her husband also worked for Ensign. It appears both were fired. Why? It has also been reported that Ensign made a handsome severance payment to the woman. That payment was never reported in his campaign finance report. Why not? Her husband received $6,000 when he separated from Ensign’s staff. It was recorded as “vacation time.” That’s quite a payment for vacation time. Some have suggested it was a payoff to get the husband out of the way. Was it?

As for Sanford, (below, left) last week he was reported missing in action. His staff did not know where he was, although they speculated he was hiking in the woods. He did not officially leave anyone in charge of the state of South Carolina while he supposedly communed with nature, but actually communed au naturale with a certain Maria of Argentina. In his absence Lieutenant Gov. Andrew Bauer said, "I cannot take lightly that his staff has not had communication with him for more than four days, and that no one, including his own family, knows his whereabouts." There is good reason for Bauer’s sentiments. Suppose there had been a natural disaster, such as major flooding while the Governor was missing. As Governor, he is in charge of the state’s National Guard. No one else has the authority to deploy the Guard to the affected areas. What would happen? As Governor, Sanford is the only individual legally authorized to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment at the last minute. Suppose his trip coincided with an execution. Then what? I could go on, but you begin to see the irresponsible behavior Sanford exhibited by not putting Bauer in charge while he clandestinely left the country.

The moral of this story goes something like this: If you make a decision to serve the public, your choice comes with certain add-ons: First, you will most likely sacrifice most or all of your privacy, and if you need a little ‘sumpin sumpin’ on the side, we will find out about it. Second, although you are in a rather dishonest business - that of government and legislative management - we are expecting you to tell the truth. And again, if you do not, we will find out about it. And finally, yes, you are being held to a higher moral standard that you might be had you decided to be a cashier at Target. And if you compromise your morality for your own self-indulgent reasons, we will find out about it.

Just ask John Edwards. Or Eliot Spitzer. Or Bill Clinton. So, what should happen? Ensign and Sanford should resign. Now. It’s not about sex. It’s about responsibility and doing the job we elected you to do. Man up and step down.