Skip to comments.Pulitzer Committee Says National Enquirer 'Ineligible' for Top Journalism Prize
Posted on 01/22/2010 1:41:56 PM PST by Zakeet
The administrator of the Pulitzer Prize board said today that the National Enquirer is "ineligible" for the nation's top journalism prize, dashing the flamboyant tabloid's hopes of taking the award for breaking a story about John Edwards' mistress and love child.
When Edwards confirmed Thursday that he fathered a daughter with the campaign's hired videographer Rielle Hunter, the Enquirer announced it would submit its reporting for the prize, calling its work "good, old-fashioned reporting."
Besides forcing Edwards to finally admit paternity, the National Enquirer's revelations have also led to a federal investigation into whether Edwards' campaign broke any laws by continuing to pay Hunter after she stopped working for the campaign.
News of the Enquirer's plans sparked a debate among journalists about whether a supermarket tabloid that pays for information was deserving of the top honor.
According to the Pulitzer's rules, however, the Enquirer may be ineligible on a technicality.
"We checked the Enquirer Web site, and it apparently calls itself a magazine. Under our rules, magazines (both print and Web versions) and broadcast entities are ineligible," said the prize administrator Sig Gissler in an e-mail, to ABCNews.com.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
The Enquirer doesn't make up enough stuff to qualify to qualify as a news organization worthy of receiving the Pulitzer Prize.
Very funny....and appropos.....
Agreed! Right now the Enquirer is far more legitimate than its high-brow conterparts. They will alway “look down” on papers that are not in lock-step. Obama got the “peace Prize” the very same way (they only vote for “like minded” recipients.)
Is silky pony holding a baby Dick Cheney in that picture?
LOLOLOL I kinda find funny and kinda sad of today journalism hey I got word for Pultizer I think they are bunch of clowns
Sooooo, if Edwards had been a conservative Republican, would the Enquirer have suddenly qualified??!!
Sounds like “Men in Black” was prescient.
I’d believe the Enquirer way, way before believing the NYT.
Have any of their reporters actually taken any REAL college courses in their lives?
“Have any of their reporters actually taken any REAL college courses in their lives?”
I’m speaking - of course - about the NYT.
Enquirer does the job that the “respectable” main stream media should have done, and gets snubbed by the Pulitzer Prize organization for even aspiring to a prize. (And given the LAME EXCUSE OF THE WEEK for why it isn’t “qualified” for nomination.) What a bunch of hypocritical arrogant elitists. The Pulitzer organization has obviously completely forgotten its raison d’etre, and has degenerated to a bunch of journalist apes picking at each other’s fleas. But the Enquirer gets the last laugh. It is making money and isn’t laying off “journalists.”
Could they at least get a Nobel?
Of course they’re ineligible for the Putlizer - Edwards has a D after his name....
It’s weird. The Enquirer is pretty sleazy, but they broke the Rush Limbaugh painkiller story, said last January that Michael Jackson had “six months to live”, and were the first to say Tiger Woods had been cheating. And of course, the Edwards story.
In all fairness, the Enquirer didn’t actually find out things the other organizations didn’t already know, with both Edwards and Tiger Woods, it was an open secret; the other newspapers simply decided to spike the story.
The Enquirer is lurid — their staff make no pretense that it is otherwise — but unlike most of the other tabloids, it does not make stories up.
Indeed a case can be made that The Enquirer is more truthful than is The Washington Post, New York Times and the rest of the leftist print cabal.
Let us remember also that The Enquirer broke the story that O.J. was abusing his wife long before the murders took place. The MSM simply was not interested in exploring the story until blood was spilled.
The Enquirer has its place in the journalistic world and should be recognized as such when it gets a story right.
Many confuse the Enquirer with the Globe and some other weekly tabloids. I may not consider all of the Enquirer stories “news worthy,” but they get their facts straight.
Their excuse is that the National Enquirer calls itself a “magazine” on its web site, and magazines aren’t eligible for the prize.
Curious. I just googled for National Enquirer, and the top entry google shows is “National Enquirer Magazine.”
But when I click on it and go there, the word “magazine” appears nowhere on that web page. Nowhere. Is this some sort of typical google trick, in collusion with the prize committee, or did they change their web page? To tell the truth, I never particularly noticed.
But I don’t think most people think of it as a magazine. Nor does it look like one.
The Enquirer also broke the story years back about Jesse Jackson’s affair and hush payments, which resulted in Jesse largely exiting the public spotlight.
Always grateful to The Enquirer for that one.