The Inquirer has nothing about the suspected Kerry dalliances, however their sister paper , the tabloid Daily News, reported it yesterday. The media knew of the rumors and it seems that no one wanted to explore it any further. Why?

Timothy Noah, of Slate infamy, waxes about the media and their reporting of sex scandals:

THE FOURTH Estate is not interested in petty gossip and unfounded rumors.

We report on matters of high policy pertaining to the public interest. Consequently, the rumor of a sexual liaison between a certain presidential candidate and a female intern with the Associated Press wouldn't ordinarily be the sort of thing we'd stoop to publish or broadcast.

Bullshit! Timothy Noah thrives on rumor and innuendo. It is a real issue when vetting a presidential candidate, especially the front-runner and expected winner. If the media had investigated Bill Clinton and the numerous charges against him, as Hitchens did in his great book, the public could have made a more informed decision about his candidacy. The fourth estate is currently slamming a sitting president for not being seen or producing anyone who had seen him 30 years ago during military service, doesn't Kerry deserve the same scrutiny. Let's look at some of Noah's other reasons:

2) It's an Internet phenomenon. The people sharing rumors about John Kerry's sex life by e-mail and on Weblogs constitute a vital new subculture - a new news medium, if you will, one that doesn't play by the old rules. This cries out for sociological analysis.

Bloggers and the internet, which Noah knows quite well, actually take time to investigate all reports on record and allow the public to form decisions. The media fears this since they've reported, or not reported, what they think is important for years. The blogosphere is a new player, trying to take the old veterans position.

5) It's a story about sexual harassment. See Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, et. al. In lieu of actual evidence, it's sufficient to find the accuser believable. That was Wall Street Journal editorialist Dorothy Rabinowitz's justification for running with the story of Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed that Bill Clinton raped her. Previously, Rabinowitz achieved renown by disbelieving stories of sexual impropriety.

The Broaddrick story was eminently believeable. Again I defer to Hitchens, who did what the mainstream press wouldn't, investigate the story and its merits.

8) It's a story about electability. Anything that's believed about Kerry, even if it's untrue, affects his electability. He is not a person. He is the public's perception of a person. A rumor is a component of that perception.

Yeah, like the perception put out that Bush was a coke-head.

9) It's a story about a Democrat, and all Democrats are scum. This justification only works for the conservative press.

10) Lighten up - it's a humor piece! Never trust anyone who tries to justify himself this way.

This is Noah's M.O. If anybody read past the first paragraph, I'd be surprised and this Noah knows full well. Everything said prior to the last line is all satire, huh Tim?