TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 11:20 AM
December 01, 2008 | 10:16 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:14 AM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

November 29, 2008 | 3:23 PM
November 29, 2008 | 2:18 PM
November 27, 2008 | 2:21 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
18.08.2008
Today in Love Child News

A reminder not to get too carried away with praising the National Enqurier's credibility--especially when it comes to "love child" stories:

The tabloid, which is being celebrated for scooping the mainstream media on the John Edwards mistress story, has quietly settled a lawsuit filed by a Cape Cod woman who claimed the Enquirer published false and defamatory stories about her supposed "love child" with Senator Ted Kennedy.

Lawyers for Caroline Bilodeau-Allen provided DNA test results from 1985 that show Kennedy is not the father of Christopher Bilodeau, who was born in 1984....

The stories, published in 2006, alleged that Kennedy and Bilodeau - she was unmarried at the time - began dating in 1983, while Kennedy was separated from his wife, Joan, just before the divorce was finalized. The tabloid claimed that after Bilodeau became pregnant, the senator, then in his early 50s, begged Bilodeau, then in her early 20s, to have an abortion.

Bilodeau-Allen subsequently sued American Media and two of its reporters, Richard Moriarty and Alan Butterfield, who is one of the reporters writing about Edwards's affair with Rielle Hunter.

That said, I somehow doubt this is enough to get Edwards off the hook. But a DNA test might!

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Monday, August 18, 2008 10:34 AM with 4 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

cal80 said:

I'm sure that refusing the DNA test is part of the financial agreement reached between Edwards and Hunter.  She doesn't want to lose her money.

August 18, 2008 11:34 AM

ChanRobt said:

Oh, don't be a snob.  Does the NYT get them all right?  WAPO?  Time Magazine?  How 'bout CBS and their Dan Rather report?

The National Enquirer, cheesy though their presentation may be, is known to have a pretty damn good record for accuracy.  

Their pockets aren't so deep or their insurance company so forgiving as to give them leeway to be irresponsible.

And, at least the Enquirer never reveals national security secrets.  They may endanger politicians, but not the nation.  It's amazing that the NYT is still considered respectable.

August 18, 2008 11:37 AM

purcellneil said:

Dear Mr Chan,

It's not snobbery to notice that the National Enquirer is not a serious news source.  I realize that Rupert Murdoch's standards have been embraced by the American right (how far can one fall from the days when William F Buckley held the place in conservative journalism that Murdoch has purchased today), but really, the Enquirer?  

Please, tell me you are kidding.

Neil  

August 18, 2008 12:44 PM

GSpinks said:

First of all, the Enquirer is a disgrace to the media community. If I didn't know better, I'd say Murdoch already owns them (and I don't know better, so there! :P).

Second, their insurance company doesn't give a shit what they do as long as they pay their premiums. All the Enquirer has to do is add enough ambiguous verbiage that they cannot be said to actually accuse someone of something, not put across anything supposing to be factual, and they're in the clear; merely suggesting or hinting at bad things is not yet illegal.

Third, to my mind this information does call into question the validity of the story put forward. Combining this tidbit with the notion that she left the father's information off of the birth certificate because she was having relations with more than 1 partner at that time, and the fact that the other guy has plausibly admitted to being the father of the child, and I would say the notion that the baby is Edwards' stinks to hell and back.

August 18, 2008 6:25 PM