a pulitzer for the national enquirer?

I worked at a paper where one of the scandals that was all over the national headlines involved a local person. It was huge at the time, on the cover of every magazine, talked about nightly on the national news and we had four reporters working on it full-time as did two other papers.

Every single significant story on this case was broken in the Enquirer. There were stories where they would beat the daily papers by a couple weeks and this was before places were posting stories online first. Our reporters actually had to subscribe to the Enquirer because that way they would get the issues a full day before the newsstand did.

They play by a different set of rules.

They broke the Tiger story too.

 

It's a book excerpt. I have zero confidence in anything Halperin does. He's an attention whore. He went on one TV show saying the news media was too soft on McCain/Palin, then went on another and said he was disgusted by the liberal bias for Obama. Unless the book has 500 pages of footnotes and sworn affidavits, I consider it as accurate as a TV docu-drama.

 

i started the thread with a question mark because i want to hear the argument against. the enquirer's success on this story -- and tiger's -- is going to have a big impact on our insecure industry, i think, and recognition of that success -- and an inquiry into the methods behind it -- is the first step toward grappling with who we are, what we do, and the standards we will, or won't, hold ourselves to.

 

The need to get stuff online fast and the culling of copy editors has a lot bigger impact on who we are and what we do than this.

This is what the Enquirer does.

 

No Pulitzer for the Gary Hart story, wasn't even a finalist.

 

NO.

 

Perhaps in the new blind pig/acorn division?

 

I know when I go to bed at night, I pine for the day when the John Edwards scandal rises to the level of Pulitzer importance.

I eagerly await TMZ's Nobel Prize for breaking what Tiger Woods nicknames his penis. I'd go with The Octagon if it wasn't already taken.

 

the guy was a serious contender for the presidency. you can argue that's a higher profile than new york governor.

 

Yeah. Was. They didn't break the story till well after he was toast.

 

The Enquirer story buried him six feet under, and exposed him as a pathological liar.

He lost the presidential bid in 2008... he wasn't going to retire forever.

This story does have an effect on 2012, 2016, etc.