February 4, 2010

6 reasons not to give a Pulitzer Prize to the National Enquirer.

Rebutted.

19 comments:

brer rabbit said...

... and a Pull-It-zer Prize to the Times re Edwards.

William said...

I was in the express line and didn't get a chance to read the article, but Edwards assaulted his cancer stricken wife according to an Enquirer headline. Edwards is clearly the biggest douchebag in American history, and the American press not only did not report this fact but took active steps to suppress it. They say it's not the crime, but the cover up. With the press it's the cover-up of the cover-up and the compounding of past mistakes.

Big Mike said...

I would be really surprised if they got to Pulitzer. That would force the MSM to confront how far they've fallen.

traditionalguy said...

The winner by default is the National Enquirer. No other newspapers have done any newspapering since 2006.

michael farris said...

"Pull-It-zer "

Shouldn't that be "Pull it, sir" ???

Had he followed that advice, who knows? Edwards might be president today....

wv: idersayi: dialect pronunciation of "I dare say".

edutcher said...

In protecting one of their own, they destroy themselves. After 40 years of watching them get away with it, petty as it may seem, you really do love the smell of schaudenfreude in the morning.

WV "fierstie" What the Safe School Czar really wants all the kids to learn to do.

mariner said...

Damn straight.

Fred4Pres said...

I am no big fan of the National Enquirer. But Joe Pulitzer was one of the best yellow rag journalists out there, which is why they will never ever ever give a Pulitzer Prize to a yellow rag like the National Enquirer. It raises disturbing things in the minds of the Pulizter board and the journalists vieing for that prize.

So called serious "journalists" want to denouce the National Enquirer in an attempt to make themselves look good (just like they do with bloggers). Some journalists are awesome but many (perhaps most) suck. The ones that suck tend to be on boards, like the Pulitzer. The NE reminds them of what they are when they are alone in the dark thinking about their miserable lives.

From Inwood said...

writing, depth, texture and context are all rewarded....

I love it when the NYT does its anecdotal shtick to prove a point. Like when Good Shepherd in Inwood is having financial problems & for some reason the only Irish-American parishioners interviewed simply heatedly condemned the then Cardinal in monosyllabic prose. “Depth, texture, & context, my arse” as my ancestors would say.

And, of all the people in all the gin joints…. trust the NYT to find the idiot-as-representative-of-the-whole, e.g., some obvious bigot who is presented as a “Reagan Democrat” who can’t quite come to grips with the idea of a Black Presidential candidate.

Or the soi-disant Republicans who claim they & their ancestors have been voting Republican since 1856 & John C. Fremont but were voting for Obama in 2008.

A friend & classmate of mine who still lives in Westchester Co., NY & who is a compassionate, but basically uninformed Liberal (but I repeat myself) & who complains about the real estate taxes on his house & him a poor retiree defended the NYT last year.

His point is that he reads it “because it is informative & literate…And what would I substitute for the NYT? Limbaugh or blogs? (Sneer) Who says that they're on the up & up or any more on the up & up than the NYT? And who are their sources & where are their fact checkers?”

My reply went something like this

It's not only bloggers who depend on others whose credentials may be challenged & who may simply be parroting crap which some "source" first put out. And with the aid of bloggers we now see that the NYT’s “news” in the political area often consists simply of “tips” from prejudiced political operatives with an agenda matching the NYT. But, of course, to true believers, like you it's axiomatic that the NYT can never be parasitic or prejudiced.

The real problem is that he & other Liberals are missing the fact that Toto is pulling back the curtain to reveal the prejudices of the MSM & thus threatening its whole structure, including its financial structure; especially its financial structure. So it’s not hard to see why the MSM is striking out at blogs. (And in this article in question on this thread, The Enquirer.)

My friend is a fossil in this regard. Guys like him are locked in some metaphoric "Kansas", Dorothy.

And no, I don’t think that blogs will supersede the MSM, anymore than the MSM has superseded books. They will exist together.

And while it's also true that many political blogs depend primarily on my hated-MSM reports as a basis for the facts they need as a starting point for their opinions, many also find their truths in non-MSM reporting (spiked stories which didn’t advance the MSM agenda) which they then use to start a debate, conversation, rant, whatever. And, non-political blogs are not as dependent on MSM reports.

And while it is certain that "nothing is certain, & not even that" & that truth is relative & changeable, nevertheless, what occurred, occurred & what did not occur, did not occur. This is tautology that NYT readers will never admit. If it wasn't "reported" in the NYT, it never occurred & if it was "reported" in the NYT, it did occur & moreover occurred exactly as the NYT "reported" that it had occurred, until that is, it publishes a correction or row back.

Like the polar bear on the iceberg seemingly alone, alone, all alone; alone on a vast blue sea. Only it was 25 yards from shore.

Or now like the Edwards story.

The Crack Emcee said...

Without a doubt, they deserve it.

I covered the story early, too, and all I got was a rock.

The Macho Response.

Maguro said...

The prize rightly belongs to Andrew Sullivan for his tireless investigation of Sarah Palin's uterus.

Tibore said...

I never, ever thought I'd see the day when I'd not only agree, but openly root for that malicious, pseudo-journalistic parody of a newspaper to win the Pulitzer. Why? Because they deserve it. They scooped the rest of the MSM, and did so because that rest of the MSM ignored, nay, refused to report the obvious story in front of them.

Let's be honest: The story itself isn't all that remarkable. "Powerful, influential figure has child out-of-wedlock" is simply not that unusual, not in this day and age. But the fact that other "bastions" (sarcasm quotes) of journalism purposely neglected to report on this topic is what's actually important here. It's the meta level here that's important. The National Enquirer deserves the big P not because their reporting was of exceptional quality - tell you the truth it probably wasn't, not based on past performance - but because they were the only organization that chose to do it back then. And in the most twisted way possible that history could have worked itself out, that rag - the embodiment of trash reporting - ended up showing the supposedly legitimate journalism circles what real reporting was, and what it wasn't. What it wasn't was ignoring a story out of convenience and sympathetic desire to laud a political candidate. What it was was pursuit of a story that mattered, simply for the benefit of their readership. Had the traditional news sources been willing to actually do their jobs, even to a backhanded, perfunctionary degree, this whole discussion of the National Enquirer and the Pulitzer wouldn't even be happening. And people could still live under the illusion that the mainstream news industry was working to inform them, and in fact existed for them, not for the politicians. Unfortunately, the curtain is drawn back, and we can see that modern journalism doesn't consider its readership a customer to serve. Rather, it thinks of them as a group to condescend to, and sees their favorite political figures as the group they actually serve.

Shameful. Just shameful. Which is why the NE deserves the Pulitzer. They, at least, remembered their readership, even if the other 99% of the time all they do is feed them trash.

MadisonMan said...

I see no reason for the Enquirer not to be rewarded for its work. I think it would be very interesting -- and if the Pulitzer Committee wants to be talked about, what a way to do it!

pm317 said...

This is how the fucker Edwards sucked up to Obama and how they both tag teamed against Hillary in the primary. Why? Because they could not stand up to the woman on their own. Watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hUW27EJFL4

NE deserves a Pulitzer at the very least as a spite to the mainstream media for not doing its job.

Peter V. Bella said...

The award is named after a publisher who published trash. So, they cannot in good conscience give the award to a publication that publishes trash.

Maybe they should consider this. The NE content aside, it is the best written newspaper in the country. That is the opinion of copywriters and writing instructors.

Both the NY Post and the NY Daily News are reputed to copy the writing style of the NE.

Yeah, their content is entertaining, but it is well written.

wv:comoo=How upstate NYs pronounce Cuomo.

Comrade X said...

it would actually be more in the tradition of the Pulitzer to give it to an outlet that suppressed the Edwards story, perhaps the NYTimes again.

hawkeyedjb said...

@William: "Edwards is clearly the biggest douchebag in American history..."

If the Edwards story stays on its current trajectory, you'll be issuing an apology to douchebags.

From Inwood said...

Hey, how come Bernie Madoff ran the world's longest-running ponzi scheme without anyone in the MSM discovering it or anyone in the SEC discovering it, tho now that venerable institution will now look for AGW disclosure?

Bernie & Edwards were Too Big To Fail! Or for conspiracy theorists, Too Connected To Fail!

Youngblood said...

Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer for lying to the world to help Josef fucking Stalin achieve his goals.

The Pulitzer Prize Board still refuses to revoke Duranty's Pulitzer.

Fuck the Pulitzer Prize. Fuck the Pulitzer Prize Board.