Did I just read that right? Is the Uptown paper of record actually defending how it handled rumors of John Edwards’ affair by trotting out the same we-investigated-but-did-not-publish dodge it used with Jim Black?

Rewind. In October 2006 the Uptown paper reveals that it had asked Jim Black about an extramarital affair with top aide Meredith Norris sometime in 2005, but had never reported his denial or on the rumors. The paper was forced to make the admission when the topic of a Black-Norris affair came up in open court.

At the time we wondered about the paper’s actions:

Why? Why ask a question that has, manifestly, been kicked around political circles in North Carolina for months if you are not prepared to report the answer?

You do not do any kind of investigative journalism that way. You do not set yourself up so that a denial from the principal subject of your investigation stops you cold and kills your story. You certainly report the denial, but presumably have developed enough independent information before you ever go confront the subject. Otherwise, what is the point?

Well, there is not one if your object is to report a story involving political power and its uses. But what if that was not the point at all? What if the entire point of raising the question with Jim Black was to provide a heads-up to favored insider?

Now the paper suggests it did exactly the same thing for John Edwards. In fact, the circumstances around the Edwards matter indicate that the paper’s “investigation” last fall led directly to a cover story from Edwards.

The timeline from today’s editorial:

  • The former campaign worker, Rielle Hunter, issued a statement last fall denying Mr. Edwards is the child’s father. Another former aide, Andrew Young, a married father of three, claimed paternity.
  • Reporters for the Charlotte Observer and other McClatchy Co. newspapers investigated last fall but could not verify the Enquirer’s allegations. After Mr. Young said he was the father, this newspaper did not publish a story.

OK, this account conveniently leaves out Newsweek’s reporting on the story last fall, but is otherwise quite revealing. As with Black, widespread rumors compel the paper to look into the matter. And again a denial — this time in the form of the Young story — completely spikes any story.

See a pattern here?

Then we get this crap:

Blogs are quick to criticize such reluctance as a failure of the mainstream media, but the thing that distinguishes good newspapers is that they make every attempt to verify details of such a story before publishing. It’s self-serving for bloggers who do not overly concern themselves with facts to criticize news media for taking the time to determine what’s factual and what isn’t.

Wrong. You likely had a story last fall and opted not to publish it in order to protect John Edwards’ political career. Either that or you did not have a story and went to the Edwards camp anyway in order to make clear the need for a new, more effective cover story.

Zippy credibility in any event.