the media fallout on Edwards

There's a been a lot of talk about the traditional media's decision to ignore the Edwards affair story (until now, when he admitted it). They didn't have facts to prove that the story was true, and, they say, they were not going to devote significant resources to the issue because Edwards (especially after January) was not a big enough figure in the political world.

NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt wrote this back on Aug 9:

“Edwards isn’t a player at the moment,” said Richard Stevenson, who directs the newspaper’s campaign coverage. “There are a lot of big issues facing the country. The two candidates are compelling figures, and we have finite resources.” He said he agreed that Edwards was “fair game for journalism of this sort, but this hasn’t seemed to me to be a high priority for us at this moment.”

That seemed at least a fair argument, even if you don't totally agree.

But then the Times last week put out a big expose further advancing the Edwards story ("Lawyers’ Ties Hint at Extent of Hiding Edwards’s Affair"). So, actually, they are going to devote significant resources to the issue. Go figure.