February 19th, 2010
05:25 PM ET

National Enquirer in the running for Pulitzer

Think the National Enquirer is just a checkout-line tabloid? Think again.

While the reputation of the publication hasn't always been sterling, it's still in the running to receive a Pulitzer Prize for its breaking coverage of the John Edwards scandal.

The Enquirer is nominated in two categories: Investigative Reporting and National Reporting.

This news comes after initial reports that the Enquirer's submission packet would be tossed out because of a variety of technicalities, one of them being a quibble over whether or not the Enquirer is actually a newspaper or more of a magazine. Prize rules indicate that the Pulitzer can only be given to a newspaper or news site that is published at least on a weekly basis.

However, it has since been determined that the Enquirer is a newspaper, and therefore will be judged in the competition accordingly.


Filed under: Uncategorized

soundoff (96 Responses)
  1. icon designs

    It is a pity, that now I can not express – it is very occupied. But I will be released – I will necessarily write that I think on this question.

    October 8, 2012 at 11:16 am | Report abuse |
  2. Miguel in NY

    When the National Equirer gets nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, you know that journalism has taken a turn for the worst. Giving them the Prize is like Sarah Palin getting nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Just pure trash.

    February 23, 2010 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |
  3. DBinVA

    Are they serious? The National Enquirer is up for a Pulitzer while the Weekly World News went belly up–and they gave us Batboy, Big Foot, and the alien who met with presidential candidates. Truly a travesty!

    February 23, 2010 at 12:01 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Kirby Marie

    The National Enquirer broke the Edwards story and the Tiger Woods story, but to get a Pulitzer for it, Heck No!

    February 23, 2010 at 11:51 am | Report abuse |
  5. dan

    you always thought the Pulitzer is some distinguished award
    it shows you more and more what a joke this world is turning into

    February 22, 2010 at 12:50 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Head Diva In Charge

    When I was a little Diva I said my dream was to work for the National Enquirer, people laughed at me, and my family asked me never to tell anyone that. Hmmm...who's laughing now? Need a new writer? Enquiring minds want to know!

    February 22, 2010 at 10:54 am | Report abuse |
  7. Mark P

    Wow, and now I will win the Lotto. Everything else weird is happening.

    February 22, 2010 at 7:15 am | Report abuse |
  8. manfield rogers

    I think Brooke Anderson is an idiot when she gives her thoughts.... as a reporter you are hired to report the news, facts....... not to add your little trite comments. and please pronounce words properly. CNN has become the new National Enquirer... great job.....

    February 21, 2010 at 11:44 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Robin

    Between reality shows and tabloids, I cannot believe there is an audience for this trash. This is more than an oxymoron, it is an insult!

    February 21, 2010 at 8:13 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Robin

    Are you serious? Someone wake me up from this nightmare!

    February 21, 2010 at 8:10 pm | Report abuse |
  11. TAustin

    IF OBAMA CAN GET A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, THEN IT IS ONLY FITTING THAT THE NATIONAL INQUIRER CAN GET A PULITZER. BOTH Obama & The Enquirer ARE FULL OF CRAP AND THEIR MAIN PURPOSE IS TWISTING THE TRUTH AND DECEIVING YOU INTO BUYING THIER LIES.

    February 21, 2010 at 7:54 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Sue

    I am now officially grossed out. Journalism is truly dead if the John Edwards scandal even rates as anything other than slimy muckraking. And no, I don't like Edwards and never did. I'm from North Carolina and, trust me, a lot of us here always knew exactly what he was. However, he is no longer a Senator nor a possible candidate for any office. What has happened is now private. The coverage of his asinine behavior has been excessive just like the Tiger Woods' stupidity.

    February 21, 2010 at 1:53 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Not a fam

    Now if that is not an oxymoron, I don't know what is!

    February 21, 2010 at 8:50 am | Report abuse |
  14. Carol

    I wish you were kidding.

    February 20, 2010 at 12:44 pm | Report abuse |
  15. jen

    Teddy, couldn't have said it any better. Whacked out modern media is so bent on pushing their agenda. . . Hoping to get a nod, they let actual NEWS slip right under their noses! I say go NE for doing what the mainstream should have all along!

    February 20, 2010 at 10:12 am | Report abuse |
  16. Fred

    what a bunch of morons

    February 20, 2010 at 9:55 am | Report abuse |
  17. Teddy

    You guys are killing me... all your rants about how journalism is dead because the Enquirer is up for a Pulitzer.

    The Enquirer would have never scored that story, if they national press HAD DONE ITS JOB TO BEGIN WITH! But instead, the liberal media was sooooo in love with Edwards and his "Two Americas" B.S. that they REFUSED to look into the substance behind the glamor. Had they done that, the story would have been exposed months, if not years, earlier and the Enquirer wouldn't be up for a Pulitzer.

    So you're right... journalism is dead... not because the Enquirer is up for a Pulitzer, but because mainstream journalism ALLOWED them the opportunity.

    February 20, 2010 at 8:57 am | Report abuse |
  18. Gary

    This is validation of how unimportant the Nobel Peace Prize really is. Now, if only Obama would give his back. Not holding my breath.

    February 20, 2010 at 7:58 am | Report abuse |
  19. Gary

    This is validation of how unimportant the Nobel Peace Prize really is.

    February 20, 2010 at 7:53 am | Report abuse |
  20. Jason

    God help us all if they actually win.

    February 20, 2010 at 7:52 am | Report abuse |
  21. GEdwards

    Fred @ 10:39 pm ET //"What nex? An Emmy to FOX for reporting? A Nobel Peace prize to Bin Laden?"
    ========================
    The standard was already set for those with Pres Obama getting the NPP in 2009 for his Presidential campaigning when he was a Senator in 2008.

    And then came the recognition to Katie Couric for "Special Achievement for National Impact on the 2008 Campaign." Last time I checked, an anchor wasn't supposed to "impact" an election. If they're doing their job, they remain impartial and DON'T affect the outcome.

    Provide facts and information, absolutely, but that's far different than being recognized for impacting it, which is the realm of columnists, editorials, talk show hosts, and radio personalities.

    February 20, 2010 at 7:51 am | Report abuse |
  22. Bigsy

    They broke the story 18 months before anyone else. They nailed it. Then they broke the story that he fathered a child and no one picked that up either. They even got pictures of him holding the child. That's good journalism folks. Say what you want about the majority of their content but their investigative unit is damn good.

    Thank god for the Enquirer. Who knows what kind of damage that nut job Edwards would have done to our political system had they not broken this story.

    February 20, 2010 at 7:27 am | Report abuse |
  23. Bruce

    Any newspaper can be nominated. Nominations mean almost nothing.

    February 20, 2010 at 7:23 am | Report abuse |
  24. HorkusMac

    Not surprising. A Nobel Prize was given to a man who was President for 11 days before the nomination deadline closed. Did anybody ragging on the Natl Enquirer frown on that decision as well?

    February 20, 2010 at 7:09 am | Report abuse |
  25. Jon

    Fred: Why not a Nobel for bin Laden? They already awarded one to a murderous terrorist (Arafat), a liar (Menchu) and for no apparent reason whatsoever (Obama).

    February 20, 2010 at 7:04 am | Report abuse |
  26. P.J.

    Well said, Tim.

    The National Inquirer also was all over the Tiger Woods story months before it happened but was "convinced" to drop it.
    We're played by the press all the time. Why not a Pulitzer for them?

    February 20, 2010 at 6:59 am | Report abuse |
  27. SP

    The Pulitzer Prize is not given based on the overall work of a news agency. There's no denying that the National Enquirer puts out a lot of false and exaggerated stories. But there's also no doubt they are the reason Jon Edwards and Tiger Woods both got caught doing what they did. Give it up to the Enquirer... they put together 2 REALLY GOOD AND FACTUAL STORIES. So they deserve an award if they get one.

    February 20, 2010 at 6:50 am | Report abuse |
  28. Sam

    In this country, nothing suprises me anymore. So they had breaking coverage of John Edwards affair. You probably could have substituted any politicians name in that article and been right more often than wrong. And besides, who cares about John Edwards...he's an idiot just like most politicians.

    February 20, 2010 at 6:48 am | Report abuse |
  29. HorkusMac

    Not surprising. A Nobel Prize was given to a man who had been President for 11 days before the nomination deadline closed.

    Don't look at the name. Look at the accomplishment.

    February 20, 2010 at 6:47 am | Report abuse |
  30. Beth Evans

    Leave a comment? There could actually be an intelligent response to this??

    February 20, 2010 at 6:28 am | Report abuse |
  31. Daniel

    Obama won the Nobel Peace prize, so why can't the National Enquirer win the Pulitzer?

    February 20, 2010 at 5:45 am | Report abuse |
  32. deepwater

    A Pulitzer Prize for the Enquirer! That's just too cool for school. Maybe now they can finally get some serious recognition for their break through reporting on Bigfoot, and Inner Earth. Unfortunately however, rumor has it that their chief editor has been abducted by aliens. Again.

    February 20, 2010 at 5:22 am | Report abuse |
  33. Royalle

    In answer to Pearley, "If they are always wrong, why are they never sued." I suggest you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Enquirer
    There has been multiple times the Enquirer has been sued sucessfully. Obviously, one does not need to speak falsely nor truthfully about things they know nothing about.

    February 20, 2010 at 5:20 am | Report abuse |
  34. Spider

    Hey, if a man who's been President for a month can get a Nobel Peace Prize for his unaccomplished dreams, why can't a tabloid rag get a Pulitzer for breaking a sad political sex story?

    February 20, 2010 at 5:14 am | Report abuse |
  35. Marie

    One thing you can depend on with the National Enquirer...if they get a story like Edwards, there won't be a cover up. I wonder how many 'legit' news outlets knew about it and decided to suppress it.

    February 20, 2010 at 5:04 am | Report abuse |
  36. Miguel

    Actually, lawsuits are pretty much standard business expense with the Enquirer-the last person that i can think of off the top of my head that sued the Enquirer was Carol Burnett, but I can remember a long list of other people who have sued the Enquirer for libel.
    Actually, I've often thought of the Enquirer as a classic journalistic example of the P. T. Barnum effect-a lot of truth, some sham, but always entertaining. However, the Enquirer is not my idea of entertainment, and is not a frequent read at all with me, but it can have some interesting, provocative, and yes, factual articles.
    The problem with the Enquirer is much the same with journalism in general: its overall quality is uneven, though I tend to think with the Enquirer it may be more so

    February 20, 2010 at 4:47 am | Report abuse |
  37. crppplll

    The enquirer is a great paper, I use it in the outhouse all the time.

    February 20, 2010 at 4:30 am | Report abuse |
  38. Jack

    Makes sense, the NE, does break stories, most of the media, is very pro establishment. After all, Bush got away with the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction, for years, no?

    February 20, 2010 at 4:20 am | Report abuse |
  39. Who

    ahah the day journalism died, mark the calendar

    February 20, 2010 at 4:13 am | Report abuse |
  40. Marty Holder

    If you want unbiased news in America you have to watch BBC or some other international venue. American journalists will run with a "celebrity" story over hard news any day so the National Enquirer has just risen to the standard. Have you forgotten they were the first to see the Jackie Kennedy/Aristotle Onassis connection? How about the story outing the affair of presidential candidate Gary Hart? Give them credit. They are providing the service Americans want.

    February 20, 2010 at 4:00 am | Report abuse |
  41. Confused

    What a joke. Next thing you know, they will give Nobel Peace prizes to war mongers.....oh wait a minute.

    February 20, 2010 at 3:43 am | Report abuse |
  42. John Edwards

    My new best friend Tiger Woods whom I met at the sex addiction clinic where we're being treated both believe the National Enquirer should not receive the Pulitzer prize.

    February 20, 2010 at 3:39 am | Report abuse |
  43. Sam Wheeler

    CNN Sounds kind of Jealous of the Enquirer! And so they'll probably not publish this. I actually hope they win! you have to admit, they've been on top of the "dark" side of stories. Just because mainstream media thinks what they report is somehow beneath them, does not mean that a lot of the world will ignore what they print. Just a few samples of what the Enquirer has scooped the "real" media on:

    the Enquirer uncovered that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had an illegitimate child.

    details of the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair were first made public by the Enquirer.

    The Enquirer was regarded by some as having the best media coverage of the O. J. Simpson murder trial. For example, when a distinctive footprint from a Bruno Magli shoe was found at the crime scene, Simpson vehemently denied owning such a shoe. The Enquirer, however, published a photo by a freelance photographer showing Simpson in the shoes, then dug up another one again showing him in such a pair.

    the Enquirer was the first newspaper to reveal that O. J. Simpson had written a book, If I Did It. The story was immediately denied by Simpson's lawyer, but was confirmed by release of the book one month later.

    the Enquirer published a story claiming that Rush Limbaugh was addicted to painkillers. Law enforcement authorities in Florida later confirmed that Limbaugh was under investigation, and Limbaugh later admitted the addiction and checked himself into a drug rehabilitation facility.

    the Enquirer reported the marital troubles of Mel Gibson and Billy Joel, both of whom announced their divorces several months later.

    In January 2009, the Enquirer ran a story claiming that pop star Michael Jackson was gravely ill and had "six months to live." Just under six months later, in June 2009, Jackson went into cardiac arrest and died in Los Angeles. In September 2009, the Enquirer broke the story of Jackson's final resting place, Forest Lawn.

    Two months later, following Tiger Woods' auto accident just outside his Florida home, the Enquirer was the first to allege that the golf great was having an extramarital affair. Shortly after this report, several other women came forward in other publications alleging to have had affairs with Woods, and the golfer eventually admitted to having been unfaithful to his wife.

    February 20, 2010 at 3:28 am | Report abuse |
  44. Nathaniel

    Throw enough mud and follow enough people and eventually you will stumble upon something newsworthy. However, that is NOT journalism. They do NOT follow leads. They follow rumors and gossip without due diligence. They PAY for information and often get it wrong. You do not reward an organization with an award for getting it right for once. You reward an organization for using the tools of journalism to be consistently right and use a specific story as an example of such excellence!

    By rewarding the Enquirer, the Pulitzer committee would essentially be telling all young wannabe's that the tactics use by the Enquirer is acceptable in the industry.... and it is not. The Enquirer propensity to publish rumor without any consequence should be reason enough to deny them any recognition now or in the future!

    February 20, 2010 at 3:17 am | Report abuse |
  45. Donna

    A Pulitzer for this rag?? give me a break. it gets a story right for the first time in its history?? How many have sues this "paper" for false stories? I bought this rag when young and stupid just for a laugh. Yeah, a laugh. This is totally ridiculous. This nomination is as much of a joke as the paper itself.

    February 20, 2010 at 2:53 am | Report abuse |
  46. Martin

    Next up – a Pulitzer for FOX News :)

    February 20, 2010 at 2:45 am | Report abuse |
  47. Jay

    I worked in newspapers - real newspapers and real newsrooms - for 30 years. I picked up a few things, including a basic sense of fairness and a rudimentary ability to think logically and critically.

    If the National Enquirer performs a real public service by publishing a real newspaper story that might well have been honored if the Times or the Post had published it, then the Enquirer should be considered for a Pulitzer. It did, and it should be.

    And yes, Fred, if Fox News ever produces something worth consideration for an Emmy, it should be considered. A million monkeys at a million microphones ...

    February 20, 2010 at 2:22 am | Report abuse |
  48. MikeWalkerRocks

    The National Enquirer broke two of the biggest stories of the year. John Edwards & Tiger. Of course they deserve to be recognized for their outstanding journalism. Get of your high horse & quit judging – HATERZ!!

    February 20, 2010 at 2:17 am | Report abuse |
  49. Patricia S. Dumas

    RinMaine, Don't fool yourself– all newspapers nominate themselves for the Pulitzer. Even the New York Times.

    The Enquirer should get notice– Woodward and Bernstein did the same thing with Watergate– only it was for the austere Washington Post– they crawled in dark parking garages, left notes in newspapers, and groveled in the dirt to get some of the most exciting journalism ever, and one of the most exciting stories of the last century.

    Give em credit. The story was true.

    February 20, 2010 at 2:06 am | Report abuse |
  50. Kyle

    this is one thing CNN will NEVER be considered for....they are to stuck on being polotically correct and not wanting to make folks UNCOMMMFOOORRTTAABBLLEE.....and it will some day do them in...

    February 20, 2010 at 1:58 am | Report abuse |
  51. rex

    Isn't this their 2nd try for this award? I thought they had been considered for their reportage that Elvis was still alive? Or was it the story about the alien baby born to earth Mother? .................. I just know that as long as they been around they were up for SOMETHING! I believe this time they will win because they uncovered this John Edwards story. Who ever he is.

    February 20, 2010 at 1:48 am | Report abuse |
  52. paul

    frank you are just too uptight. yeah they broke the story of the year get over it

    February 20, 2010 at 1:35 am | Report abuse |
  53. JamesC

    The Enquirer did an exceptional job of breaking the story of John Edwards when the rest of the national media was simply unable or unwilling to do so.

    Credit where credit is due.

    February 20, 2010 at 1:32 am | Report abuse |
  54. Daniel

    "And so goes journalism; spiraling down the drain along with real factual reporting. Pulitzer? Even a broken clock is right twice a day."

    unless its digital in which case its once a day or not at all because it completely shut off..... either way the odds just went down dramatically

    February 20, 2010 at 1:27 am | Report abuse |
  55. Dave Duffy

    The Enquirer is more honest than CNN. They air scandals about everyone, not just Republicans.

    February 20, 2010 at 1:26 am | Report abuse |
  56. Samsquaw

    This shows the sad state of journalism today- but does not reflect poorly on the Enquirer. Indeed, they're actually doing real reporting: Something which the corporations which control most mainstream media don't find profitable.

    February 20, 2010 at 1:20 am | Report abuse |
  57. B-Rady

    Congrats, Enq. There is nothing more American than someone (in this case – an article) that leaps forward. Our country was built on the concept that we can do better than those that came before us and these folks have out-shined themselves....very American. Well done.

    February 20, 2010 at 1:11 am | Report abuse |
  58. Peter

    "What nex? An Emmy to FOX for reporting? A Nobel Peace prize to Bin Laden?"

    If Arafat could get one, why not OBL?

    February 20, 2010 at 1:07 am | Report abuse |
  59. WTF??

    It's about time that we give a magazine for reporting the breaking news the credible kudos that it deserves. I mean, how many others can crack the case that Elvis is still alive. I mean come on, NPR can't even do that. Wait... what about Bat Boy! What journalism that was huh?

    Well, I will continue reading it while I stand in line at my discount supermarket paying for the top quality cans of food that have been marked down because of a dent. Thank goodness the magazine is available to everyone and not just us elite and upper crust types.

    Yep, Inquirer deserves it!

    February 20, 2010 at 1:02 am | Report abuse |
  60. Al Artanis

    The bottom line is the Enquirer got the story right. Not because of superior journalistic technique, but because the mainstream media simply ignored it so not to impact one of their comrades. The same way the media ignored that Barack Obama lacked the experience to run a Bob's Big Boy let alone the country. Tell me American Media, has the tingling in your leg subsided?

    February 20, 2010 at 1:01 am | Report abuse |
  61. Robert

    The story they're nominated for was a huge deal and no other news outlet had any idea what was going on before the Enquirer broke it. So the rest of the articles are mainly garbage... so what? They're not nominated for an "overall reporting" Pulitzer. It's a Pulitzer for a single story that they did an excellent job on. And the story was journalism at it's best, unlike the constant stream of nonsense that most of the other outlets are putting out.

    February 20, 2010 at 12:59 am | Report abuse |
  62. GozieBoy

    NE doing the work that the currently dying Dem-controlled MSM used to do. Hope they win one.

    February 20, 2010 at 12:56 am | Report abuse |
  63. Joe J

    It's finally come full-circle.
    Look into what kind of a journalist Pulitzer was in his day, what with the catapulting the United States into an unnecessary war with Spain by sparking a battle over newspaper circulation based on the most absurd, sensationalist claims.
    So, it all makes sense, really.

    February 20, 2010 at 12:55 am | Report abuse |
  64. Obama Fan

    What was it that Tommy Lee Jones said in "Men in Black"? The National Enquirer was the "hot sheets". He read them because the New York Times got lucky once in awhile and that the Enquirer was the best investigative reporting on the planet.

    With the John Edwards and Tiger Woods revelations, does anybody want to doubt that?

    February 20, 2010 at 12:51 am | Report abuse |
  65. Nosey

    I wonder if this means it can be sued for libel more easily instead of just saying it's an entertainment periodical?

    February 20, 2010 at 12:50 am | Report abuse |
  66. Bloomingdale Ed

    Yes it is true that the National Enquirer is being viewed as a newspaper is sad. The only sadder point is that it was the first and for at least I saw for several weeks the only one to break it. Then several right leaning news outlets broke it. Then last but not least, the ones that are left leaning had to publish it because they had to. I do not know if Cronkite is spinning in his grave because of the Enquirer is considered a new paper or that actual new outlet refuse to report is until they had to because of the party that they align with.

    February 20, 2010 at 12:41 am | Report abuse |
  67. Gale60

    Who say's the Enquirer has never been sued?
    Yes, som times they catch a break on the news and they got lucky. Someone had some smut to peddle and knew Enquirering minds would pay cash.
    Maybe they read Rolling Stone and finally figured it out.

    February 20, 2010 at 12:39 am | Report abuse |
  68. DinCali

    Uh the National Enquirer is always being sued.....

    February 20, 2010 at 12:22 am | Report abuse |
  69. Jay

    A Pulitzer Prize for National Enquirer is more deserved then a Nobel Peace Prize for BHO.

    February 20, 2010 at 12:17 am | Report abuse |
  70. Jay

    Congrats to the National Enquirer. Shame on the main stream media that ignored this story. One has to wonder about the timing of their ignorance. Had John Edwards been exposed early in the primary his dropping out would have benefited Hillary Clinton. She might have won the Democratic nomination and the Presidential election. Not that I want to see her in that office.

    February 20, 2010 at 12:16 am | Report abuse |
  71. Rob

    The "real" media dropped the ball on this story b/c they and all their liberal friends didn't dare think it was all true! Even still where is the breakdown and analysis of what a dirt bag John Edwards is?! We are into our 3rd month of the Tiger Woods drama. John Edwards was almost our Vice President!?

    February 20, 2010 at 12:14 am | Report abuse |
  72. Amanda

    Sorry, Pearley, but they are sued!!

    February 20, 2010 at 12:13 am | Report abuse |
  73. MJY

    Perhaps it is the quality of the press that is bringing it down, not the internet!

    February 19, 2010 at 11:58 pm | Report abuse |
  74. HF1

    Who cares. Like the US ever had a free press in our lifetime? Wake UP america!

    February 19, 2010 at 11:56 pm | Report abuse |
  75. Unsinkable

    Seriously? Awarding the Pulitzer to the Enquirer will make a complete joke of the award.

    February 19, 2010 at 11:37 pm | Report abuse |
  76. david

    Glad to hear this, hope they win.

    February 19, 2010 at 11:34 pm | Report abuse |
  77. Kevin Mahoney

    It's pretty obvious that the internet has killed our news sources. Instead of relying on a set amount of paper ads, now the more clicks the better. And Michael Jackson and balloon boy are what people click on. I know I could get super long articles on everything, but it would be nice to have a newsource that would report on PNAC, or when a catasrophic event like M.J.s death occurs, can still focus on Somali pirates or other come and go issues like immigration. The only solution is to have a news organization that is self imposed non profit.

    February 19, 2010 at 11:34 pm | Report abuse |
  78. Diane

    I honestly can't decide which is more laughable - that the National Inquierer is up for a Pulitzer, or that cnn.com, a supposed news agency, tries to compete with its likes by running celebrity gossip.

    I mean, who cares about China trying to dictate who can speak to the Dalai Lama, Iran's joke of a president and his nukes, or a key figure in the Taliban being removed, when we can hear about a golfer cheating on his wife.

    February 19, 2010 at 11:22 pm | Report abuse |
  79. Bri

    Well, the Nobel went to Obama...

    February 19, 2010 at 11:15 pm | Report abuse |
  80. Art

    I'd vote for them. What the heck. It is basically in line with the sorry state of affairs in which we find ourselves as a country.

    February 19, 2010 at 11:11 pm | Report abuse |
  81. patrick

    At least the Enquirer isn't a bunch of axe grinding socio-political activists like CNN and Fox.

    February 19, 2010 at 11:10 pm | Report abuse |
  82. Homer

    Say what you will about the National Enquirer, but they completely scooped the rest of the news media. I'm no fan of tabloids, but they do deserve to be in the running on this one.

    Think about this: NYT runs a story about the possibility that John McCain MIGHT have had an affair with a lobbyist, but ignores the affair and love child of Edwards while his wife battles terminal cancer.

    Nobody is saying the Enquirer is always worthy of respect, but they really ought to be considered this year.

    February 19, 2010 at 11:08 pm | Report abuse |
  83. Joel

    Are disputing the fact that the enquirer did factual reporting? It's not their forte, but they don't shy away from a great story whether it's true or false.

    February 19, 2010 at 11:03 pm | Report abuse |
  84. Mark

    Verily I say unto you that this is a sign of the end times.

    February 19, 2010 at 11:02 pm | Report abuse |
  85. Rod

    New York Times......., National Enquirer......, not much difference.

    February 19, 2010 at 11:01 pm | Report abuse |
  86. Glenn

    I have a friend who was once a photographer for the National Enquirer, and who went on to work at several prestigious institutions. He says that the Enquirer paid well and always printed the truth. I agree with "Pearley" who notes that the Enquirer breaks stories that others follow.

    February 19, 2010 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
  87. Krystin

    Well, as immortal a man as Cronkite seemed, he was, in fact, mortal. His death should hardly signify the death of journalism in America.
    Also, don't forget that a new generation of journalists is being trained right now. We've seen the mistakes of previous generations – the plagiarism, sloppy storytelling, misleading headlines, exaggerations – and we know how to recognize and avoid them.
    Journalism is far from being dead. We are lucky enough to be witnessing the beginnings of a renaissance in the field. This, perhaps, may just not be the most illustrative example. Have faith and stay informed.

    February 19, 2010 at 10:47 pm | Report abuse |
  88. maquignon

    If Barak Obama can win the Nobel Peace prize, why not?? Next – Brooke Shields wins an academy award.

    February 19, 2010 at 10:46 pm | Report abuse |
  89. Jim

    The National Enquirer does something few newspapers, tv or radio stations do...they triple check the information before printing it. It's Libel to print something untrue about someone, such as having an affair and fathering an out-of-wedlock baby, unless you can prove it to be true. They do occassionally get sued by the rich and famous, but never successfully.

    February 19, 2010 at 10:42 pm | Report abuse |
  90. Fred

    What nex? An Emmy to FOX for reporting? A Nobel Peace prize to Bin Laden?

    February 19, 2010 at 10:39 pm | Report abuse |
  91. Tim

    ... and the Nobel Peace Prize goes to ... someone without an ounce of merti. Next up? The Pulitzer...

    Oh, wait – I may already be a winner for the Publishers Clearing House. So it's all good.

    February 19, 2010 at 10:23 pm | Report abuse |
  92. RinMaine

    Another example of bad reporting. They nominate themselves and then they claim that they are "in the running." That is sick. You would think that they are part of Fox News the way they lie.

    February 19, 2010 at 10:22 pm | Report abuse |
  93. Leslei

    I'm so glad that the Enquirer is getting the kudos it deserves. The fact that many other media outlets knew, but would not publish, a presidential contender's affair speaks to their lack of courage. Courage is what makes good journalism!

    February 19, 2010 at 10:20 pm | Report abuse |
  94. Pearley

    The National Enquirer will come out with a story and people will say that it is false. Then a month later, it comes out on CNN or other news media as true. It is the only one you can trust and get your news first. If they are always wrong, why are they never sued.

    February 19, 2010 at 10:11 pm | Report abuse |
  95. The Gunny

    The status of journalism in America, can now be clearly show to be gutter garbage. Walter Cronkite is dead and the National Enquirer is being recognized. The world as we know it, is coming to an end.

    February 19, 2010 at 9:40 pm | Report abuse |
  96. frank

    And so goes journalism; spiraling down the drain along with real factual reporting. Pulitzer? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    February 19, 2010 at 7:01 pm | Report abuse |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

Our daily cheat-sheet for breaking celebrity news, Hollywood buzz and your pop-culture obsessions.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,002 other followers