THE PLANK AUGUST 22, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
One of the unanswered questions of the National Enquirer-John Edwards sex scandal is that the tabloid never published photos of the now infamous encounter at the Beverly Hilton in the early morning hours of July 22, when a pair of Enquirer reporters and a photographer busted Edwards attempting to sneak out of the hotel. The tabloid ran with the story and on August 6, published a blurry photo of a guy who looks like Edwards holding what the Enquirer alleges is his love child (Edwards denies this). But why not publish photos of Edwards trying to blockade himself in the hotel's basement bathroom? Surely that would sell newspapers. What gives?
"This became a psychological game," Enquirer editor-in-chief David Perel told me by phone on Wednesday, when I asked him about the mysterious Beverly Hilton photos (Read my full piece here). Perel says his photographer snapped numerous photos, but the tabloid didn't release the shots right
away because they wanted to get inside Edwards' head, and play mind
games with the former Senator. "I knew if I released the photos right away, Edwards would continue to lie and say, ‘oh that’s not me.’" Perel said. "I thought I could freeze him by not releasing the photos, so he knew that I knew that he was at that hotel, and what he was doing every step of the way. If he didn't know what else I have photos of, he can only assume worst case scenario."
But now that Edwards has come clean and admitted to the affair with his former videographer Rielle Hunter, why not run the photos? "It doesn’t matter now," Perel said. "The whole point was that it was a bit of a psychological standoff. I felt I could read him psychologically. I wasn’t going to give him a chance to deny the photos."
--Gabriel Sherman
7 comments
"But now that Edwards has come clean and admitted to the affair with his former videographer Rielle Hunter, why not run the photos? "It doesn’t matter now," Perel said."
Well that's clearly a big fat lie.
- nextwave
August 22, 2008 at 9:59am
Are you impugning the integrity of the Editor of the National Enquirer? Perish the thought.
It is strange if they don't have or don't publish the photos though, considering they obviously did get the genuine scoop. Maybe they're still holding them in hopes of getting an "I have sinned" interview with Edwards himself?
- Typical
August 22, 2008 at 10:00am
Who cares?
- EricWitte
August 22, 2008 at 10:11am
I don't know how the sensation business works but it would seem the public has a tipping point & too many pics, too soon could cause burn out. Since Enquirer only appears to have this remaining batch of Edwards in the toilet? Why go out with a whimper when they can ration the sludge and when the pipeline is dry...
"Candidate Caught By Candid Camera In The Can!"
They're in no hurry & any photo they have will be seen. When it is best for them.
- michael
August 22, 2008 at 10:13am
If Edwards ever actually gave an "I have sinned" interview to the NE, he would become a bigger joke than he already is. Has anyone ever rewarded the NE with a personal interview after having been exposed? Edwards already gave his sorry "I have sinned" interview anyway in which he proclaimed that he only sins like 1% of the time anyway. The guy's just not a genuine star, so I don't see how this story has much public appeal.
- propositionjoe
August 22, 2008 at 10:21am
I doubt that the National Enquirer has anything else on Edwards - or they would already have published it. Nobody cares anymore - the economic value of another picture is dropping rapidly; the whole thing is getting to be a huge bore. In fact, if you listen carefully, you can hear me snoring.
- purcellneil
August 22, 2008 at 10:59am
Here is Edwards' "denial" re the baby picture, according to ABC's transcript:
EDWARDS: The picture in the tabloid. I have no idea what that picture is.
WOODRUFF: But you've seen it right?
EDWARDS: I did see it and I cannot make any sense out of that. When I went to this meeting you've already asked me about, uh, I was not wearing a t-shirt, I was wearing a long-sleeved shirt with the sleeves rolled up. I don't know who that picture -- I don't know if that picture is me, it could well be, it looks like me. I don't know who that baby is, I have no idea what that picture is.
***
WOODRUFF: But are you saying you don't remember holding that child of Miss Hunter?
EDWARDS: I'm saying you asked me about this photograph, I don't know anything about that photograph, I don't know who that baby is. I don't know if the picture has been altered, manufactured, if it's a picture of me taken some other time, holding another baby -- I have no idea. I was not at this meeting holding a child for my photograph to be taken I can tell you that.
This guy is not worth defending.
- AMVHuck
August 22, 2008 at 11:50am