Now that the cat's out of the bag, the media get to indulge in some omphaloskepsis regarding this John Edwards mess

We discussed the John Edwards Affair Scandal a couple of days before Edwards 'fessed up, allowing the mainstream media to finally report on it. And now, of course, come the repercussions - the earnest, defensive, chest-puffing navel-gazing on why they couldn't discuss it before that point.

The New York Times:

"A number of news organizations with resources far greater than The Enquirer's, like The New York Times, say they looked into the Edwards matter and found nothing solid enough to report, while others did not look at all.

"Some of their comments point to a lack of interest in a story about the private conduct of an also-ran presidential candidate, and a distaste for following the lead of a publication they hold in low esteem."

The Washington Post:

"The story of Edwards's affair with a former campaign aide became so widely known -- what a Slate blogger called "undernews" -- that by last week there seemed little point in the mainstream media gatekeepers' keeping it isolated outside their moat. And yet, even as some national news organizations tried halfheartedly to confirm the tawdry tale, they ignored it in public -- wary of the National Enquirer, of Edwards's dismissal of "tabloid trash," of wading once again into the swamp of sexual scandal without definitive proof.

"By early last week, journalists were in the awkward position of refusing to report on explosive allegations that were almost certain to knock the former North Carolina senator out of the Democratic convention. They were in a box of their own making, one that came to feel airtight and uncomfortable.

"When critics, especially on the right, accused the media of protecting a Democrat because of liberal bias, journalists were unable to respond, because to do so would be to acknowledge the very thing they were declining to report. At the same time, in an area of financial cutbacks and shrinking staffs, news organizations have fewer reporters to dig into what most considered a less-than-pressing priority. ...

"The fact that big newspapers, magazines and networks have standards -- that is, they refuse to print every stray rumor just because it's "out there" -- is one of their strengths. But in the latter stages of this case, it made them look clueless. Perhaps there is a middle ground where media outlets can report on a burgeoning controversy without vouching for the underlying allegations, being candid with readers and viewers about what they know and don't know.

"In the end, the much-derided MSM were superfluous, their monopoly a faded memory. People have hundreds of ways to obtain information in today's instantaneous media culture, and are capable of reaching their own conclusions about what is reliable and what is not."

Politico.com:

"The following day I spoke with Alexander Hitchen, another Enquirer reporter who was at the Hilton, and expected to turn around a media-related story. But it could be argued that a media story -- without a corresponding news story -- is sort of a weasel way around the unpleasant fact that you can't actually confirm the rumors yourself."

CNN.com:

"I wasn't eager to take on the story because, frankly, I didn't find it all that remarkable or noteworthy. Sure, Edwards isn't exactly some anonymous private citizen. In fact, he is a prominent Democrat who might well have -- until the scandal broke -- wound up in the Cabinet if Obama were elected president. He's also someone who has said that voters should evaluate candidates' personal character in deciding what kind of leaders they would make.

"But nor is Edwards the front-page fodder he was back when the fight for the Democratic nomination was in full swing and he had a faint chance of winning. The fact that Edwards lied repeatedly to reporters and his campaign paid Hunter thousands of dollars made the story a bit more appealing. Yet it wasn't appealing enough to compete with all the other things there are to write about in the world -- including the shaky economy, the Iraq war, Iran's nuclear buildup, Russia's invasion of the former Soviet republic of Georgia and the Beijing Olympics."

Well, sure. But don't news outlets have bunches of reporters, so that some can cover wars, some can cover economic woes and some can cover former Presidential candidates' high jinks?

Of course, they all blew the weapons-of-mass-destruction thing, too, so by comparison this is no biggie.