a pulitzer for the national enquirer?

Protested:

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/53320/

 

No

 

Cops do that stuff all the time. It's standard. Is it OK for them to make suspects believe they know more than they do?

 

again: have there been allegations on the edwards story that the enquirer did something journalistically indefensible?

let's hear them. and i'm not being chippy here: there may be, and i'd love to hear them.

because if you look at most significant industry screw-ups over the last decade or so -- wen ho lee, the rick bragg toe-touch, jayson blair, judy miller and wmd, the john mccain story -- you could argue that no journalism organization has done more to blacken the name of the craft than the new york times.

and where does that leave us?

 

Totally different jobs, totally different purposes and totally different sets of ethics.

 

Not defending those incidents - though the John McCain story isn't even in the same three-state area as the others - but you could also say that the NYT has done more to exalt the name of the craft in the same time period. It's a huge, ambitious news organization.

And my issue with the Edwards story, from a hypothetical Pulitzer perspective, isn't the methods of reporting. It's that it's salacious gossip. When has any story even comparable been in the running for a Pulitzer? Spitzer is different. He was an elected official breaking the law.

 

agreed on the mccain point -- though wasn't that salacious gossip also?

why is it okay for the times to go after candidate mccain's personal life, but not for the enquirer to go after legitimate presidential aspirant edwards' personal life -- especially since so much of edwards supposed appeal stemmed from his much-shopped relationship with his cancer-stricken, earthy, gravitas-lending spouse?

slices it pretty thin there, i think.

as for journalism excellence, i'll take the washington post over the times for the same time period. on the biggest story of the era, the post ate the gray lady's lunch.

 

Because boinking a lobbyist is far worse than porking one of your campaign workers, that's why.

 

agreed. but when candidates are selling their personal lives -- especially at the national level -- i think it's all fair game.

 

Ineligible, says Pulitzer Board:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/national-enquirer-win-pulitzer-edwards-coverage/story?id=9627228

 

I think Ed Anger should be eligible for APSE honors. His Super Bowl stuff annually is among the best anywhere, in any medium.

 

Aside from whether the National Enquirer is a magazine and is trying to win a 2009 prize with stories from 2007 and '08, isn't one of the factors how well the story is written? Has anybody ever read an NE story and been impressed with the writing?