The Power to Decide What is "News"

So, by now everyone with functioning retinas has seen the news that John Edwards has admitted to having an extramarital affair in 2006 -- an affair that may or may not have resulted in him fathering a daughter out of wedlock. (Hmm...perhaps Senator Edwards would like to rework his "Two Americas" trope? How about, "One America that cheats on its incurable-cancer-ridden spouse and one that does not"?)

Despite the frenzied media coverage of this story over the weekend, rumors of an alleged affair have dogged Edwards for years -- particularly on the blogosphere -- leaving some to wonder why the mainstream news media didn't pick up the story sooner.

Some theories: (1) the media kept quiet out of respect for Elizabeth Edwards, whose public battle with incurable breast cancer garnered her considerable public sympathy; (2) there was insufficient credible evidence of an affair to move the story beyond speculation, at least until Edwards' admission of guilt; and (3) the story was originally reported by The National Enquirer, and "respectable" media outlets didn't want to follow the trail of a supermarket tabloid.

Conventional wisdom says that it was #2; in fact, ABC News sources say that they were close to gathering enough verifiable evidence of an affair that they likely would have aired the story this week anyway, even without Edwards' confession:

Asked by CNN's Howard Kurtz if sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards played any part in an apparent reluctance to report the story, ABC correspondent Kate Snow said no.

"We at ABC were working on this story, and if we had had any proof and any verifiable facts, we certainly would have gone with the story," she said. "It was just a matter of, we're not going to put something on the air until we know that it's true."

On this particular story, most major news networks took the stance that the rumors of an affair were not newsworthy.

Brian Ross, ABC's chief investigative correspondent, said his investigative team was pushing hard following the money trail, looking at such things as who paid for [Edwards' mistress's] fancy California home and the use of campaign funds.

He said that even without Edwards' admission, ABC probably would have been able to run a story about the issue this week.

Still, there was some acknowledgment that #3 was an issue, too:

David Carr, a columnist for The New York Times, said many news organizations "tend to pick up stories from the National Enquirer with tongs."

What I found most interesting about this article -- and what made me think about previous discussions we've had concerning the role of technology in reporting/recording crimes -- was the comment from NYT columnist David Carr about who has the power to decide what is "news":

"I was taught when I was a young reporter that it's news when we say it is. I think that's still true -- it's news when 'we' say it is. It's just who 'we' is has changed," Carr said.

"Members of the public, people with modems, people with cell phones are now producers, editors. They can push and push and push on a story until it ends up being acknowledged by everyone."

Isn't that the truth? And the power of technology to raise awareness of events -- including crimes -- goes well beyond posting cell-phone videos on YouTube. For example, the grassroots movement to investigate the rape and murder of Private LaVena Johnson has gathered tremendous momentum recently, and has occurred largely online.*

It seems like a topsy-turvy world when The Enquirer is blazing journalistic trails ahead of ABC News and the New York Times, but opportunities for lay people to agitate for media coverage of an event seems to grow exponentially as technology becomes both more accessible and more sophisticated. Now if only someone could get a decent camera-phone video of the elusive "Bat Boy".

*P.S. Stay tuned for what I hope will be our first guest blogger post about disparate media coverage of murdered white women and women of color.