On Monday, the 2010 Pulitzer Prize winners were announced. The Washington Post was the clear winner. But there was one publication not on the winner’s list, no doubt to their own chagrin.
I’m not talking about any of the big-time newspapers. I’m talking about the National Enquirer.
Yes, you’re thinking of the right National Enquirer. Yes, the one you find at the checkout line that you claim you never read, except when that line is really long at the grocery store and, well, you just had to find out if Taylor Swift really is sex-crazed.
The National Enquirer submitted its investigative work into the John Edwards scandal (you know, his affair with Rielle Hunter that resulted in the birth of a baby girl). Yeah, that was broken by the Enquirer.
When the magazine submitted itself for the investigative reporting and national news reporting award categories (already in dispute because it’s technically a magazine, and not a newspaper), the so-called “real” media was up in arms.
There was no way a tabloid could be considered for a Pulitzer. After all, they’re a tabloid. (This seemed to be the only argument the mainstream media had, but the swung it out time and time again.)
See what the mainstream media seems to be ignoring here is what they ignored to begin with.
The Enquirer was printing this story, and questioning Edwards about the then-alleged affair, for months. The mainstream media on the campaign trail with the former U.S. presidential candidate, never asked a single question about the reports.
In fact, it was Edwards who first brought up the reports to refute them. If it were not for that, the mainstream media may never have had any idea.
Sure the Enquirer uses a lot of anonymous sources that make it hard to really put stock in their truth and yes, their stories are wrong most of the time, but this time they were right.
And they have every right to try to be awarded for their hard work.
I’m not saying the Enquirer deserved the Pulitzer, but they deserve not to be a laughing stock for entering themselves into the competition.
They may not have brought down the President of the United States, but they certainly came pretty close.
National Enquirer does not win Pulitzer, all remains right with world
On Monday, the 2010 Pulitzer Prize winners were announced. The Washington Post was the clear winner. But there was one publication not on the winner’s list, no doubt to their own chagrin.
I’m not talking about any of the big-time newspapers. I’m talking about the National Enquirer.
Yes, you’re thinking of the right National Enquirer. Yes, the one you find at the checkout line that you claim you never read, except when that line is really long at the grocery store and, well, you just had to find out if Taylor Swift really is sex-crazed.
The National Enquirer submitted its investigative work into the John Edwards scandal (you know, his affair with Rielle Hunter that resulted in the birth of a baby girl). Yeah, that was broken by the Enquirer.
When the magazine submitted itself for the investigative reporting and national news reporting award categories (already in dispute because it’s technically a magazine, and not a newspaper), the so-called “real” media was up in arms.
There was no way a tabloid could be considered for a Pulitzer. After all, they’re a tabloid. (This seemed to be the only argument the mainstream media had, but the swung it out time and time again.)
See what the mainstream media seems to be ignoring here is what they ignored to begin with.
The Enquirer was printing this story, and questioning Edwards about the then-alleged affair, for months. The mainstream media on the campaign trail with the former U.S. presidential candidate, never asked a single question about the reports.
In fact, it was Edwards who first brought up the reports to refute them. If it were not for that, the mainstream media may never have had any idea.
Sure the Enquirer uses a lot of anonymous sources that make it hard to really put stock in their truth and yes, their stories are wrong most of the time, but this time they were right.
And they have every right to try to be awarded for their hard work.
I’m not saying the Enquirer deserved the Pulitzer, but they deserve not to be a laughing stock for entering themselves into the competition.
They may not have brought down the President of the United States, but they certainly came pretty close.