While I have to agree with all the blogs linked to this post--and with this one--that the NYT article has a lot of innuendo in it, that doesn't prove it's wrong. While the Times may not have interviewed people recommended by the Edwards campaign (and probably should have), tax filings about expenditures seem a pretty firm basis for what work the Edwards program did or did not do--though not for all the supposition about motivation. It is, at most, an academic argument though since none of these blogs can match even the reduced reach of the Times.

This blog post presents a useful piece of information about the misleading NY Times article about John Edwards. The fact that the NY Times reporter declined to speak to any of the beneficiaries of the Edwards charities suggests that its research may have been limited. (My own review of the NY Times article raises questions about its insufficient sourcing, evidence and context). As far as this blog post is concerned, I also find it lacking in depth. While the new fact it presents is helpful, it doesn't investigate its veracity with independent sources, and also takes sides, which makes it suspect as well. Maybe everyone should take a deep breath, and spend more time researching, rather than spouting off with limited facts on hand.

Mainstream corporate media is notorious for undermining or ignoring progressive candidates. That portion of the big picture is not mentioned in the story, but is implicit. The story is very important if a biased story is featured and the press refuses to even investigate offered bases of reality. Kucinich gets ignored, Edwards ranks higher in the polls, so he is slandered. Welcome to mainstream media owned by whom?

While there may be some criticism to be had of the Times on the Edward's story, I think this story is problematic for a two reasons. A) The author has made strong claims without getting a response from the Time and B) Sargent seems to be missing the point of the story. There are many non-profits doing good things out there- considering his clout, Edward's probably did a lot of good. But that doesn't change the fact that he also used the charity for purposes that appear to be completely out of scope with the goals of the charity.

Interesting analysis of journalistic ethics. Looks like the NYT author may have made unwarranted assumptions. In either case this A1 NYT piece on Edwards certainly constitutes strong evidence against the common right-wing criticism that the paper is left wing. Makes one wonder if the paper would have the guts to do the same kind of innuendo-filled hit-job on a right-wing candidate. The right tends to push back much harder, which is why Krugman says the media have learned to attack the left to appear balanced while often avoiding attacking the right for fear of massive vitriolic retaliation.

A nice follow on to the NYT piece alleging John Edwards was the 'main beneficiary' of an anti-poverty center he raised millions for.

Discredits a fake news story that appeared on the front page of the New York Times today.

This is a particularly interesting story in that it explores whether or not a front page article in the New York Times counts as good journalism.

It is good journalism because it checked with the source of the story and rebuts the points made by the author. I think it would be clearer exactly what is being said here if I had been able to read the initial story, and be better able to speak to the "good journalism" of this story.

This piece from one of Edward's chief and most dependable defenders in the media can't even come close to undercutting the sharp edge of the heavily sourced NYT article that appeared this morning. The AP has also run a very similar story today, further reinforcing the accuracy of the NYT piece. As the Atlantic's political blogger, Marc Ambinder, has written, the only ones surprised by the NYT and AP stories are those who haven't been following the Edward's campaign closely.

Greg succinctly points out the fatal (and many) flaws in the Times piece. The original piece is shoddy and lazy journalism at its best (or worst) and the fact that they did not even bother to investigate whether the organization fulfilled its stated goal is nothing short of despicable. Thank you Greg for bearing some much needed light on this.