Scanner

Wait--you have confirmation the woman's child is Edwards'?  You've made it sound very specifically as if Edwards has admitted the child is his and is now talking about why that's okay.  

That seems, at the very least, sloppy, and at worst, a deliberate attempt to promulgate misinformation.  If you have sources that confirm the paternity of the child, I'm sure the news media would be interested in hearing about them.  If not, how can you justify asserting as fact something that has simply not been established as such?  

I don't have any particular stake in whether the child is Edwards' or not.  But the fact is nobody knows.  It's misleading and irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

No doubt that Edwards is a total dick. To say that the baby is his is just gossip, you have no right to accuse him of ignoring his parental roll. Once there is a paternity test and it comes out positive, have a field day with it!

I'm disappointed that you've posted this false accusation and will now take what you have to say with an extra grain of salt.

Uh, yeah...I basically said that people who are in the position of reporting news should report facts instead of misleading their readership.  You find this worthy of mockery?

From your response, it sounds like you do indeed have proof of your contention.  Please direct me to the source.  If you do not, you are out of line with your snide response, and seem to be deflecting the points I brought up because you have no justification for the post.

Again, I could give a shit about John Edwards.  But I do care about responsibility in journalism, even if you hold yourself to a lower standard.  Please explain how your post is accurate.    

Seriously Brian, not only misreporting the facts, but then mocking someone for calling you on it?  Scanner sure went downhill the day you got hired.

I don't want to speak for Brian, who clearly can respond himself, but my take on the post was that he assumed we all know the allegations and counterallegations (including one from a "friend" of Hunter claiming the baby is Edwards', see, e.g., www.nydailynews.com/.../2008-08-12_john_edwards_is_the_daddy_rielle_hunter_.html ).  Now, the allegations may well be false (the "friend" "lost touch" with Hunter a year ago and is a professional publicist).  But my takeaway is that Brian does not believe Edwards' denial of paternity.  In the context of the payoffs to Hunter from Edwards' finance director, the secret meeting in Beverly Hills, Hunter's convenient refusal to have a paternity test, Edwards' refusal to give a timeline of the affair, and his HAVING LIED TO OUR FACES ALREADY, it's not an absurd opinion to hold.

So yes, paternity is an open question, and yes, Brian hyperbolically presented his opinion as fact, but that hyperbole, I think, was meant to be a humorous way of presenting his opinion.  

I found it misleading too.

I second the professor.

@profrobert: Your take is a generous and potentially accurate possibility, except for the fact that hyperbole is marked by overtly obvious, even extravagant exaggeration for effect.  The statement at the start of this post simply replaces an even-handed assertion of the facts with an artificial scenario which never happened but which less informed readers might easily accept without question.

That's a disservice, not creative rhetoric.

Hyperbole is safe from misinterpretation because it does not resemble reality:

"John Edwards, having admitted paternity, now explains that his love child is actually a genetically-engineered cyborg-alien cross incubated in Hunter's uterus but not originating with her DNA.  The child, which is being called "The Chosen One" in the media, is said to bear the stigmata and prefers the sequel to Back to the Future over the original.  Edwards could not be reached for comment."

But the post DOES resemble reality.  If a reader is not familiar with the status of the story, the post sounds like a conclusion gleaned from established facts.  It is perfectly fine for Brian to believe exactly what he wrote.  It's not okay to present that view as actual reportage.