The National Enquirer article on John Edwards' supposed lovechild is, err, interesting. So far as we can tell, here are the facts in it: A former Edwards staffer is pregnant. She has relocated to Chapel Hill, North Carolina. She says the father of her child is a fellow Edwards staffer by the name of Andrew Young, who lives in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Andrew Young also says he's the father of her child. Rather than this being the end of the story, the Enquirer calls Young's admission of paternity "a bizarre twist," and warns that "others are skeptical." Which others? We don't know! There are no names or contrary facts, just some anonymous sources. It is, after all, The National Enquirer. But that's only the original article! Then Drudge picks it up. Then it moves over to Mickey Kaus's House o' Lowlife Smears, where he enthuses that "The Enquirer drops another Edwards scandal bomb."* He doesn't discuss the actual article, but just warns that "There's no reason to conclude this story was planted by one campaign or another." He never mentions Young, or the admission of paternity. Then Andrew Sullivan latches onto it, disassociating even more than Kaus, but simply saying that "I can't imagine [the story] can just evaporate. Certainly not if Mickey has anything to do with it." Right now, the only known facts are that a pregnant former-Edwards staffer moved to North Carolina to be nearer to the man she claims to be the father of her child. This man agrees that he is the father of her child. But The Enquirer needs to sell copies, Mickey Kaus needs to ruin Slate's reputation, and Andrew Sullivan doesn't like John Edwards. With each step away from the source, the facts of the article are further ignored, till they're no longer even mentioned -- all that's uttered is that Edwards is embroiled in a paternity scandal. As of now, there's no evidence for this, and those publishing the rumors should be ashamed. Though the shame they should feel over their journalistic practices pales in comparison to the shame they must feel over their amorous feelings towards goats. Update: Mickey Kaus writes in to say he didn't use an exclamation point to emphasize The National Enquirer's bomb. And he's right! Instead, it was in all caps, and when converting to lower case, I unthinkingly added the punctuation mark. But for those reading along and concerned with accuracy, it should be rendered in a shout, not with emphasis.
