a pulitzer for the national enquirer?

Well, there's always sex rehab!

 

Still a little chippy that I nailed you on that one, I see.

 

Not at all. Just having a little fun. And, um, you didn't nail me on anything.

But it's apparent your sense of humor has abandoned you. It's cool, though. I still laughed.

 

Me? I'm having a blast watching you talk out of your ass.

Please continue teeing them up.

 

Ok. Seriously. It was a harmless joke. I'll know better next time. Sorry.

 

That's a bit of a high standard. Yeah a decent amount of stories have led to societal change, but every Pulitzer winner has done that? Really? I'd say to win you need good reporting and writing, not too sure you need to be a guardian of justice and righteousness.

 

1. In cold reality, the Pulitzers are associated with Columbia University, of which the Sulzberger family are the top donors. So it ain't gonna happen.
2. Pulitzers for investigative journalism tend to go to worthy stuff, malfactors of great wealth getting caught, ingrained political corruption exposed, etc. The only Pulitzer for the Lewinsky deal went to Maureen Dowd for commentary.
3. If the Enquirer got a Pulitzer, run off 300 copies of your resume before you turn off the office lights.

 

National Enquirer gets blasted for whatever tactics it used or didn't use in getting the Edwards story accurate, but few protest when NYT produces a similar type of story about John McCain that is off the mark.

Please explain.

 

It's Ronzoni, hands down.

 

Post of the decade. Nice job. Loved it.

 

End of thread.

That hondo cracked their balls in the first reply to this post, even though a Dem (albeit one with no political future any longer) was the target of the report, was the first reinforcing hint. Glad to see ink is still thicker than blood.

 

Few protested? Please.

Also, no one started a thread that said: "a pulitzer for the new york times on john mccain lobbyist story?"

Huge, huge, huge stretch on your part to try to turn this partisan.