1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

a pulitzer for the national enquirer?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by AD, Jan 21, 2010.

  1. AD

    AD Active Member

    for breaking -- while everyone else sat on their hands -- the john edwards story?

    they kicked ass. i say yes.
  2. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    Yes they broke it.
    How many journalistic ethics did they ignore?
    Let me pay sources, lie about being a reporter, get the nanny or the pool boy to talk, sneak around behind hedges, make shit up and use that to get people to tell the truth and I could break a hell of a lot of stories.
  3. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    I'll vote no.

    When Pulitzer announces a category for 'Best Spaghetti Sticking to Wall,' I'm in.
  4. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    What if you called a source and said, "I already have one source saying Coach Cumberbund is going to be the new coach at Podunk High and I just need a second one to confirm it?"

    But you really didn't have a source yet. Would that be OK?
  5. AD

    AD Active Member

    does everyone here shooting this down have rock-solid proof that the enquirer violated journalism ethics?

    or are we just throwing spaghetti at a wall?

    if the enquirer did -- and we know it, instead of engaging in, uh, rumor -- then, no, they shouldn't get it.

    but if they broke THE major political story of the year, one that has been proven right time after time and resulted in a grand jury investigation (sort of like the times' bang-up, pulitzer-winning job on spitzer), then i think the case can be made.
  6. JackReacher

    JackReacher Well-Known Member

    Not sure, but I hear you can win an Emmy by videotaping a college football coach's exit interview. [/crossthread]

  7. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I agree that just blindly assuming they violated ethics is wrong.

    Don't agree that its THE major political story of the year. Maybe if they broke it when he was in office or something. But the guy was pretty much on the periphery by the time this story hit the papers.
  8. AD

    AD Active Member

    unless i'm mistaken, they first broke the story about the affair in the fall of '07, and pursued it while edwards was running for president.
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    It always kills me when other journalists get steamed about a suggestion that the Enquirer nailed something. It makes me uncomfortable, and should make anyone uncomfortable, that they pay people for info. That hurts the publications credibility and yeah, you do have to always question their stories before patting them on the back. They falsely reported that members of Elizabeth Smart's family were involved in a gay sex ring and had to print a retraction. They had bought that story for $20K. They have also been successfully sued for libel.

    But they have also done some pretty good work getting at stuff a lot of other people were chasing. When OJ Simpson denied owning Bruno Magli shoes after the forensic guys identified the foot prints at the crime scene, it was the Enquirer that dug up a photo of him wearing a pair of Bruno Magli shoes, for example.

    Did they breach any ethics in their John Edwards reporting? I didn't follow it closely enough to remember if they were spreading cash around on that one. Sometimes they really do outwork a lot of people and got a lot of stuff that others couldn't come up with--on the up and up. It's never cut and dry with the Enquirer.
  10. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    Moot point since the Enquirer, on its Web site, defines itself as a "magazine" and magazines and their Web sites are ineligible for Pulitzers.

    I don't thint it would deserve a Pulitzer anyway. All the story did was satisfy some people's curiousity. Zero societal impact. The lives of people in North Carolina and the nation did not improve an iota as the result of the story. No laws were changed, no one left office.


  11. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Maybe they had something then. When you have one person claiming an affair and no confirmation in The National Enquirer, people take it with a grain of salt.
  12. fishwrapper

    fishwrapper Active Member

    Speaking of magazines...give this a once-over. It's a fantastic account:

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page