Click below for the story of why John Edwards’ campaign cancelled the interview that had been scheduled for me this evening with Elizabeth Edwards.

– Martin Wisckol

Some key folks with the county Democratic Party and the Democratic Foundation of Orange County had been trying to get me an interview with John Edwards during his visit to Anaheim this evening. After all, I’ve had one-on-one sitdowns with Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson – but have not been able to corner any of the Democratic candidates yet.

These local folks helping me out were very eager for Edwards to talk directly to the Register, in part because it would help raise both his profile and the party’s profile. Always seeing just the top GOP candidates in direct Q&As in the county’s paper of record doesn’t do much for Democrats morale.

Finally, this morning, I get word that I wouldn’t be talking to John Edwards but that I would get 10 minutes with Elizabeth Edwards. I talked this over with my editor — we don’t want to be obligated to talk to every candidate’s spouse who comes through town, but agreed that Elizabeth had an exceptional story because of her ongoing battle with cancer. We agreed that Bill Clinton would probably also be an exception.

So the interview was a go. In the afternoon, I got a call from the Edwards campaign inquiring about the questions I would be posing. I don’t feel obligated to give advance notice of my questions, but I wanted to be upfront in this case. I said that among my questions, I would ask, “Would you address the rumor of your husband’s affair?”

Out of respect for Elizabeth Edwards and because the rumors were unsubstantiated, I said I would not press the issue beyond asking the single question — but that I felt obliged to ask it.

The campaign worker did her best to convince me that it wasn’t a legitimate question. I asked if she was saying that I couldn’t do the interview if I was going to ask that question. I didn’t get a straight answer, so I asked if I would get the interview if I agreed not to ask the question — if she wanted that ground rule.

The campaign worker was sharp. She immediately asked that if it was a ground rule, would I then write that I got the interview because I agreed to the ground rule?

I said I would indeed mention, at least on the blog, that such a provision was required for me to get the interview. She said she’d get back to me, and later called to say the interview had been cancelled.

This was an uncomfortable situation for me. Perhaps 20 years ago, this issue would have never come up. But Gary Hart and Bill Clinton and many others have been landmarks of the changing journalistic standards along the way.

The alleged affair based on an anonymous source was reported yesterday by the National Enquirer. Although The Boston Herald – among others — found that report sufficient to write this story, I’m not sure it would have been enough to convince me that it was fair game. Perhaps to ask John Edwards himself, but maybe not for his wife.

But I didn’t have to make a decision based on that. John Edwards himself subsequently denied the affair to the Associated Press (story here) and others. Besides all the blog chatter, the story had now strode clearly into the mainstream press.

The question I asked myself: It’s a day after news of the alleged affair started to break. I would be getting what was probably going to be the first interivew with Elizabeth Edwards since the news broke. Would I be doing my job if I did not offer her a chance to respond? If I did not ask her the one current events question she’d never been asked before?

I think I made the right decisions in how I handled this. I subsequently talked it over with my editor and a couple of other reporters whose judgement I trust. I was honest with the Edwards campaign, and I proposed what I thought might be a fair compromise (I don’t ask the question, but note the condition of not asking it was required to get the interview).

But I still have my reservations. At what point does something have enough credibility that you ask the participants about it? The standard is higher when the issue is personal, like adultry, but how much higher? Is it possible to fully do one’s job in the mainstream of an industry — in this case, daily newspaper journalism — and not abide the evolving standards of that industry?

– Martin Wisckol

This entry was posted on Friday, October 19th, 2007 at 10:01 pm and is filed under Candidates' OC visits, Edwards. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.