The John Edwards Scandal & the New Media Conversation

The race for the Democratic presidential nomination winds to a close in Denver next week, and those who have been following this extraordinarily long process have seen numerous battles and unexpected twists along the way. Certainly one of the more dramatic developments within recent weeks - and one that relates only tangentially, if at all, to Barack Obama - was the public admission by former senator John Edwards that he had been having an affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter, who had worked with him on the campaign trail in 2006.

Regardless of the moral and ethical implications of Edwards' behavior, the way this story was covered - and more importantly, the way it was not covered - by the news media reveals a dramatic change in the way most Americans now get their news.

Personally, I think it is a tragedy that this bright and compassionate leader who had been so outspoken on issues like eradicating poverty in America and taking action against global warming could be derailed by an issue that has nothing to do with his ability to lead. Politics aside, this story is important because it reveals the way the public is now exposed to stories and information in this internet age.

Prior to Edwards' own admission of his involvement with Rielle Hunter, virtually every single "mainstream" newspaper and television news organization had decided not to report a single word of the story. Consistent with its tabloid reputation, The National Enquirer was the publication that broke the story months ago and long remained the only one to print updates.

For those of us interested in the dynamics of public relations in this new media age, what is most significant about the Edwards story is that it had become part of the national (even global) conversation months before the "old-fashioned" traditional news sources decided to break their silence. In an August 8 article, The New York Times quoted from the blog of former The San Francisco Chronicle editor Phil Bronstein, who questioned the way the traditional media leaders had maintained a "hands-off" approach to this story. Bronstein wrote that they did this in large measure simply because of the "gutter" reputation of the publication in which the Edwards story first appeared. In his blog, Bronstein asked "Does anyone really think that a story splashed in the tabs and debated on blogs like a powerful fire backdraft is somehow not part of the public discourse?"

I've found this story to be a useful reminder of how important it is - in my work representing and advising authors, public speakers, and small business owners, no clients in the political sector - to "think outside the box" these days. For the past few years, I've reminded my clients that we now live in an age in which people can "cherry-pick" the information they're most interested in - and (like it or not) we've entered an era in which a story in The National Enquirer or on the PerezHilton.com website is suddenly (shockingly?) on the same "level playing field" as a story appearing in the highly esteemed New York Times. Granted, the reporter of a story appearing in that newspaper is probably more deserving of our respect and consideration than the author of an item published in The National Enquirer, but -- as we now see with the John Edwards scandal - that doesn't make the story itself any less true.

As a publicist, I certainly won't stop working hard to place my clients' stories in a well-respected newspaper like The New York Times or on a broadcast like NBC's "Today" show. Nevertheless, the Edwards scandal is a reminder that the spectrum of sources offering us information these days has never been wider, and the vehicles for communicating those stories now include YouTube, countless blogs, and other sources (including John Stewart's late night show, when it comes to politics) that those of us in the PR field weren't even aware of just a few years ago.

If you would like to share your thoughts on the "changing media landscape," I'd love to hear from you!