The John Edwards-Rielle Hunter story is finally leaking into the mainstream media. McClatchy has weighed in on the story, reprinted in parts as far afield as Cleveland (thanks Mom!), Charlotte and Modesto. And reporters from other outlets are probing the former candidate on the question. Edwards ducked the subject when a dozen reporters and photographers tried to ask him about his night at the Beverly Hilton, the alleged affair and subsequent baby, at a speech he gave this week at an AARP symposium on poverty and aging in Washington. Edwards slipped out the back of the hotel and told a journalist, "Can't do it now, I'm sorry." Commentators are quite rightly pointing out that if Edwards had nothing to hide, why not do a paternity test and be done with it? And there's another story today, this in The Charlotte Observer, digging up the fact that Hunter's child, Frances, has no father listed on the Santa Barbara birth certificate.

Couple of other points worth noting: The New York Times, the paper of record, has yet to print anything on the topic. This is particularly uncomfortable for the paper in the wake of having published a front-page piece in February that suggested an affair and improper ties between John McCain and a female lobbyist who was not his wife.

Here's another question: Where is Elizabeth Edwards? How is she taking all this? She is typically not shy about berating the media when she feels they have stepped over the line.

And finally: Why is the National Enquirer playing coy? Where are the photos and the full-out coverage from its multiple-reporter-photographer-extravaganza- chasing-John-Edwards-into-a-Bathroom at the Beverly Hilton? Roll tape please.

In this summer of dismal television, is anyone out there watching the inspiring, beautiful, dramatic, fascinating, heart-wrenching documentary series on ABC, "Hopkins"? This six-part series is almost over, and in the course of these weeks, we've gotten to know real-life doctors and patients and their families, interns and nurses and surgeons in their most intimate moments.

We watch as they dispense life, or deal in death. We observe, week after week, as a baby with an enlarged heart fights to survive, or a couple undergoes a three-way kidney exchange so the wife can get the organ she needs. We've watched newborns die, we've watched interns make rookie mistakes. We've seen residents recoil at gunshot victims and surgeons allow themselves a moment to feel heroic. The payoff is so much more gratifying than "ER," or "Scrubs" or "Grey's Anatomy." Because it's real.

This is journalism at its best, and it is extremely hard to achieve, the result of great courage on the part of Johns Hopkins - who let camera crews in to see the good, bad and incompetent - and of great effort, patience and editing skill by producer Mark Gordon. Bravo, too, to ABC.

Is the public paying attention? The ratings have been up and down, and lately down. "Hopkins" started out winning the night among its competitors, but it hasn't done so well since. The show draws strong female audiences; this past week it lost - by a lot - to a new CBS police thriller-drama, "Flashpoint."

We viewers have to tune in when the networks bother to broadcast something of quality. Otherwise, we get what we deserve. This coming week is the finale. Let's watch it.

From Media By Numbers, domestic box office. (Short version: Dark Knight keeps raking it in; Kevin Costner - see no. 6 - will need a stiff drink.)

1. The Dark Knight $43,800,000.

2.The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor $42,450,4001

3. Step Brothers $16,300,000

4. Mamma Mia! $13,120,670

5. Journey to the Center of the Earth $6,875,000

6. Swing Vote $6,300,000

When I visited Joe Eszterhas a month ago, he told me he had a new book coming out about his rediscovered faith in Christ. But he didn't tell me that he had hidden yet another real-life drama in its pages: a child, a daughter, given up for adoption four decades ago. Her name is Suzie Perryman, and she was born around 1967 to Eszterhas, then a Cleveland newspaper reporter, and his then-girlfriend, and given up through the local Catholic Diocese. Perryman sought out Eszterhas about a decade ago, but only really began a relationship with him after reading that he'd contracted throat cancer several years back. Then her own children were diagnosed with a degenerative disease, and Eszterhas helped his estranged grandchildren get a proper diagnosis and treatment at the Cleveland Clinic. Even so, Eszterhas describes their relationship as "a work in progress." The Plain Dealer, Eszterhas's old employer, told the story today, and the iconoclastic screenwriter emailed me tonight that the story was "complete and accurate."

Complete? Not really. I have a ton of questions: who's the Mom, described as a "successful set designer"? Why adoption? Any regrets? What do his other children (two grown ones from marriage A, four young ones from marriage B) think?

Eszterhas seems to have an endless supply of unrevealed personal drama. We learned in recent years his father wrote anti-Semitic propaganda for the pro-Nazi Hungarian government during the war, and that the State Department sought to deport him. We learned that Eszterhas had torrid affairs during his first marriage, most interestingly with Sharon Stone. Now this. Is there anything else Joe Eszterhas is not telling us?

Scary? You bet. We've all read about the plastic surgery disasters that lead to the sad outcomes pictured here. But New York magazine has a fascinating and often hilarious look at the new  celebrity face, and why it looks so damn good: Demi's, Madonna's, and Angelina's. Today's top doctors, it turns out, don't tighten the skin and overpump the lips, they add volume. Baby fat. Here's the new surgeon-to-the-stars, David Rosenberg:

"What has transpired in the past ten years, says Rosenberg, is “further dissection of the deeper layers” for a face-lift that is almost entirely muscular. Rosenberg and surgeons like him go under the cheek-fat pad and disconnect the platysma, which is a sheet of muscle that supports the lower face, then they resuspend it higher with stitches under the skin. “That’s how you fix the surface—from below,” he says. “I am working on the undersurface, and everything gently comes with it. So there’s a feminine quality, it’s soft and smooth. When it heals, you don’t see tension on the outer surface.”

Now you get it? Here's the rest.

The Hollywood Reporter is up for sale, I’m told by two solid sources. Are you really surprised? At a time of deep decline in the newsprint business, and with rival Variety  already on the auction bloc, the Nielsen Company has quietly put up for sale the bundle of 42 trade papers in its Business Media division, which includes THR, Billboard, Backstage, Adweek, Brandweek, Mediaweek and Editor & Publisher.

Here’s why this makes sense: The value of the trade paper, once a Nielsen flagship, has declined from a $20 million EBITDA to $9 million, and may drop as low as $6 million in the coming year, according to my sources. The trade has already eliminated about one-third of its 135 positions, which includes a significant number in ad sales, and editorial cuts in such key news centers as New York and Washington. Most distressing is that despite the website’s major redesign in late April, web traffic has seen no appreciable change, and indeed is declining of late.

The folks in charge at Nielsen dispute the news, but aren’t exactly in lockstep. Eric Mika, publisher of The Hollywood Reporter, said he hadn’t heard a thing. “I wouldn’t say it’s true or false,” he said. “It hasn’t come across my desk.” He noted that the Reporter is investing in new initiatives, and reported “fantastic growth on subscriptions in print and digital” in the past three months. (If so, online growth is invisible to the naked eye.) Transforming the international edition into a Friday weekend edition in January has bumped circulation 22 percent, he said.

Gerry Byrne, who since February has led this division, emphatically denied that it is for sale. “We’ve got big plans to expand. The challenges of change are big. But content is king.” He hinted that the Reporter would expand into the consumer business. “We’re going where we can hit our primary customers, but we’re looking at consumers,” he said. “The joint is not up for sale.” Byrne said that reports of a sale may be coming from “unsolicited callers” who are eager to get their hands on the well-known brands in his division.

I doubt it. Anyone can see the Reporter is not thriving. And neither of my sources, who each declined to go on the record, are in a buying mood.

A news site I've never heard of, newsmax.com, which purports to be an "independent" publication with "a  conservative perspective" offers up its list of Hollywood Obamamaniacs today. The list offers few surprises - Scarlett J., George C., Matt and Ben, Halle, Oprah and Will - but the site seems thoroughly obsessed with the presumptive Democratic nominee, which is interesting enough. Here tis.

Second review of "Loot," from Kirkus Reviews. An excerpt:

"Former New York Times culture correspondent Waxman (Rebels on the Backlot: Six Maverick Directors and How They Conquered the Hollywood Studio System, 2005) adroitly and expertly explores a centuries-old struggle.... Who has the right to the world’s treasures? The case of the Elgin marbles illustrates how difficult such questions are to answer. Much of the Parthenon was destroyed during the marbles’ removal, but the temple was being used at the time by the occupying Turks as a storage facility for gun powder, with more than one resulting explosion. Athenian pollution subsequently corroded much of what remained on site, but the British Museum’s attempts to clean the marbles has also had disastrous effects. In Waxman’s hands, the question of justice remains intriguingly slippery, and the argument over who owns history takes on new depth. Erudite and wholly satisfying."

In 18 days, "The Dark Knight" has crossed the $400 million landmark in its domestic release, according to Media By Numbers. It killed the competition last weekend, including and especially "The Mummy" sequel, despite being in its third week of release. Amazing to note that the drop-off in interest in "The Dark Knight" was smaller this past weekend than the week before that, and the exit polls suggest that viewers are going to see the Chris Nolan action-drama figure repeatedly. Meanwhile, let's remember that the international box office has only just gotten started. (And can someone please answer my question on the absence of a day and date release?)

As we suspected, "The Dark Knight" will become one of the most successful movies at the box office in Hollywood history. The only question is: how successful? Warner Bros expects the film to top out domestically at around $500 million, which will knock"Star Wars" from its number 2 perch, and put it just after "Titanic" - the top-grossing film of all time, which took in $600 million domestically, and a total of (gulp) $1.8 billion worldwide. But "Titanic" will hold on to its title. "Nothing is going to touch 'Titanic,'" Paul Dergarabedian, the president of Media By Numbers, told me today.

...but just a taste of what's going to be coming. Alex Ben Block has a a very good piece of reporting in today's Hollywood Reporter, in which he interviews the unpopular partner in ThinkFilm, David Bergstein, who is facing a series of lawsuits and whose financing troubles have left a host of movies in limbo and creditors in a state of fury. Block lets Bergstein have his say: "Our business plan is not so much about the movie business... It's really to build a global digital distribution business. It's based on the expectation that in the not too distant future most content will be delivered digitally and on-demand."

But then Block goes on to cite the reasons why Hollywood has learned to loathe this guy, selling off films that he committed to release, cancelling others and scheduling no release dates for some recent pick-ups from Sundance. This summer's debacle with David O. Russell's film "Nailed" - production was shut down repeatedly by the guilds over lack of payment - has been the most public of the company's travails. Bergstein appears to be well and truly out of money.

Bergstein is an accidental mogul, getting into Hollywood because he loaned former dry cleaner/clubber Elie Samaha money and then inherited Samaha's library when Franchise Pictures went bust. Then in 2006, Berstein and a construction pal, Ron Tutor, bought Thinkfilm for a reported $18 million from Jeff Sackman and Co., a well respected indie.  But apparently Bergstein knows little about how business is done here. I've been hearing for weeks about people stiffed by Bergstein - advertising companies, publicists, producers and their actor-partners - after having been made promises, and after cutting their fees to get a green light from Bergstein.

There's a lesson here somewhere. "When people are desperate to get their movie made, they'll make a deal with the devil," said one embittered producer, who is owed about $200,000. "You know he's gonna f--- you. But at least you get your movie made."