Honestly, if just one person came forward other than the putz Enquirer reporter (with no camera) who allegedly trespassed into a hotel at 2am and held John Edwards hostage in a bathroom for 15 minutes (do Enquirer reporters pack heat? maybe he knows Muy Thai? anywhose, how the hell do you trap someone with bodyguards in a bathroom in a hotel that's generally crawling with security guards?), this might be interesting. The MSM is just doing its job by ignoring a story with incredibly poor sourcing, but Gawker apparently thinks you should libel now and apologize later.

This is crazy, the videos she made are all on YouTube
They're both clearly in love with each other.
He looks so besotted with "camera girl"
You can see that she gave an interview to EXTRA on their website when this first came out. She has a very colorful history and likes the attention.
All of the information is coming from a "source" close to Rielle.
She wants this to come out, she wants John to admit to the relationship. I don't blame her. I'm sorry for Elizabeth. She was the brain behind the man. Elizabeth got sick and had to focus on herself rather than him. She lost his attention and he is an insensitive narcissist who is incapable of understanding how to use a condom.

BoHan, a security guard at the hotel has now come forward and confirmed that Edwards was there when they said he was.

And Choire, if the LA Times bloggers aren't supposed to rehash and amplify a tabloid magazine's claims until the news arm of the paper has or does not have something, how do you explain this?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2008/07/matthew-broderi.html

Simon Scowl, an "unnamed security guard." Screw that, when you're trying to out this story.

Good point, BoHan. That must be why the Enquirer has filed a criminal complaint against the hotel for the way their reporters were treated. Now the whole thing will be investigated, at their own prompting, and they'll be proven liars. Right?

I would say the logic of this only holds if LA Times bloggers are under a general directive to never post about a story until LA Times reporting, rather than the reporting of some other news agency, has acknowledged it by taking the story to print, or by being in the process of doing so. Otherwise, Kaus is certainly right that a specific edict on this story is shady. And I doubt such a directive exists (Simon Scowl's link above would seem to support that doubt), though I may well not know what the hell I'm talking about.