I got an email the other day from FOX News asking me if I would talk to Megyn Kelly on her new afternoon show about whether the National Enquirer should be in contention for the most prestigious of newspaper awards, the mighty Pulitzer, for its coverage of the Edwards sex scandal.
My first reaction was, not interested, too sleazy. You don’t win Pulitzers for stories about tawdry stuff like that. So why would I want to put my “good name” on such a crummy discussion? Boy was I wrong.
I did a little research and found out that when Maureen Dowd won the Pulitzer for distinguished commentary in 1999, the official announcement said, “Awarded to Maureen Dowd of The New York Times for her fresh and insightful columns on the impact of President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.”
Geez, I forgot all about that.
A tad more research revealed that the New York Times won a Pulitzer just last year for its coverage – ready? – of the Eliot Spitzer sex scandal.
So the argument that sex scandals aren’t Pulitzer worthy isn’t much of an argument. Then why all the hand wringing about how just letting the Enquirer in the same room with “real” newspapers will only tarnish the noble Pulitzer?
Sig Gissler, a Pulitzer bigwig, told ABC News, “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.”
You’re kidding, right, Sid? Anyone who’s ever picked up the Enquirer at the supermarket checkout counter knows it’s a newspaper. It’s black and white and read all over, right?
Then there’s Tim McGuire who teaches journalism at Arizona State, who said, “the Pulitzer is never awarded for ‘newsbreaks’ or scoops. Even in the breaking news category, writing, depth, texture and context are all rewarded…. I contend there is no precedent for ‘good scoops’ winning the big prize.”
This guy is teaching kids? You think when the Times won the Pulitzer for its coverage of Spitzer it was for “textured writing”? I don’t think so. What about when the Times won for its scoops about President Bush’s domestic wiretapping program? You think that was for anything but a “good scoop”?
Why don’t they all just say it: They hate the Enquirer because the Enquirer deals in trash – while the big mainstream newspapers that garner so much respect from the Pulitzer folks and journalism professors deal in really important stuff, like what Monica Lewinsky was doing to the president and what those hookers were doing to the former governor of New York.
OK, cheap shot. Still the angst revolves around the fact that the Enquirer is not a member of the club, the one that consists of all the “proper” newspapers in America. You know, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and all the other big, important, mainstream publications that missed the Edwards story!
Here was a man who might have been president, vice president or attorney general, a man who was a phony and a liar, and it took the “trashy” Enquirer to tell America about him. In fact, when Edwards formally backed Obama for president, this is how the New York Times put the endorsement into context:
“John Edwards gave his long-awaited endorsement to Senator Barack Obama, bolstering Obama’s efforts to rally the Democratic Party around his candidacy and offering potential help in his attempts to win over working-call white voters in the general election this autumn.”
Oh yeah, the Times wrote that a full seven months after the Enquirer first started writing about Edwards and his mistress – and didn’t include a syllable about what the Enquirer had been uncovering.
Let’s face it, if the New York Times or the Washington Post broke the Edwards story no one would be asking if the paper should be in the running for the Pulitzer. It’s only a question because it’s the Enquirer.
For the record, I’m not saying the Enquirer deserves to win. But I am glad it’s in contention. The Enquirer humiliated all those newspapers that consider themselves Pulitzer-worthy – the ones that treated the true-blue liberal Edwards as a serious candidate and a serious political force in the campaign while the “trashy” Enquirer knew better.
Ein deutscher Bezirkspolitiker – der in den Bundestag will – Raserei in seiner Arbeit als Staatsanwalt. DDR-Verhörmethoden an U-Gefangenen mitten in Berlin im Jahr 2011. Sehr lesenswerte Aktion deutscher Webmaster mit unvorstellbaren Informationen über einen Stasi2.0 Missetäter: Regimeanwalt-Roth.com
Great information! Didn’nt think the post would be so interesting!
“Sig Gissler, a Pulitzer bigwig, told ABC News, “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.””
What happens when one of the old-fashioned “newspapers” converts to online only? Or when the most celebrated journalists work for online-only operations? Will the Pulitzer folks redefine (modernize) themselves also?
Seems as though the conversation this story should have sparked was “what exactly is modern journalism?” not just “are scoops Pulitzer worthy?”
While the shot at Dowd’s Monica Pulitzer was dismissive and easy, it would’ve had more weight if backed up with some facts about her work. Did she predict anything that did or didn’t happen? Did her interpretations of the “meaning” pan out, play out, in any way? Did that particular Pulitzer stand the test of time?
In my opinion, that’s the kind of value, Bernie, you are particularly qualified to bring to your audience. However, the formulation “Dowd + Clinton + Monica + Pulitzer = dismissive shot” can come from any amateur.
The National Enquirer is INELIGIBLE for Pulitzer Prize consideration because it is a MAGAZINE, not a NEWSPAPER. The Enquirer altered its legal status from newspaper to magazine in 1981 after it lost a multi-million-dollar libel suit filed against it by Carol Burnett.
Regardless of the Enquirer’s legal status, no publication that’s lost a libel suit should be eligible for the Pulitzer. The Enquirer’s been sued repeatedly for libel and defamation — and lost several big ones, most recently a 2006 suit filed by actress Kate Hudson.
Right on!!!! Wish I wrote that.
they took when they screwed up…. they shouldget credit when they do well!!!
Another Pulitzer for NYTimes will go in line well with Al Gore’s Academy Award and Barack Obama’s Nobel Prize.
The Enquirerer was diligent in pursuing the Edwards story in spite of the denials from Edwards and the lack of investigation by the lame-stream media. Without their diligence and the this story would have died, isn’t that what makes Pulitzer Prize worthy?
Sleaze doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the award until the story becomes bigger than the individual. I wonder, today, how many “lame-stream” media members say” this is too sleazy for me to cover”?
Wouldn’t it be ironic if The Enquirer turned into a REAL newspaper reporting REAL news that the lame-stream media can’t be bothered to touch???? If you want to see sleaze, read any of the liberal left newspaper……it’s just pap that is pandering to the administration and the “prince of sleaze”.
I only read the National Enquirer when I’m standing in line at the supermarket. I won’t pay money for it. That said, I do have more respect for the Enquirer than I do the New York Obama Times. I won’t buy that, either. (Or log on to their website).
Good commentary!
Another example of the LSM. The facts are clear it’s not about the story, but who wrote it. If you’re in the club you’re in contention.
I respect your opinions and common sense. Would you be willing to review and offer an assessment of my manuscript (Are we Exactly the Same But Different?)?
Scott
sorry Scott … but good luck!
The other papers didn’t miss the story. They wanted to help Edwards. They were in bed with him (so to speak).
Ron, is it possible that the New York Obama Times and the rest of the lamestream media was afraid that Edwards’ supporters might go to Hillary Clinton, rather than Obama, and that’s why they ignored the story? After all, many of Edward supporters were working class white people, the very people who went for Hillary Clinton over Obama.
If Bill Clinton had been having an affair, or Hillary herself, they would have jumped on the story. And if you remember, The NY Obama Times basically invented a story about John McCain having an affair (and I think they had to settle out of court with the woman in question when she sued them).
I feel pretty confident in saying that if Obama had been having an affair, none of us ever would have known about it. All of them – NBC, ABC, CBS, NY Times, Newsweek, etc. would have DELIBERATELY COVERED IT UP. It never would have seen the light of day.
Quite frankly: who cares about sex affairs of politicians, if they do a good job otherwise. All your presidents went out there to try and do a good job, probably thought they can do better then the previous one. Instead of doing their job, they have to fight left and right, media and all sorts of loonies with no real knowledge of anything, but screaming out the loudest. At the same time they try not to loose their aim out of sight.
You really have a serious problem, if you are more interested in the sex affairs of your presidents and other politicians instead of their aims and the ways how to realise them. Or you are extremely lucky, that your interest goes that direction, which normally would mean, that there are no worse problems.
The point is: if the readers are interested in sex affairs, they will get them, because the media want to sell best.
This comment comes from Europe, and there we also have real problems, but the sex affairs of our politicians bring us some sort of hillarious relaxation.
I wish to your President peace for his job, may the media not be his worst enemy, worse than any taliban.
Renata,
Yes, it is sad that many Americans are more concerned with the sex lives of their elected officials than their actual performance. Having said that, if their sex lives become public, it calls into question their judgement. The point is not whether they are faithful, but whether they exercised good judgement when the temptation presented itself.
And in this country, the media is anything but the President’s worst enemy – and that is one of our biggest problems.
Is there a real argument against the value and quality of the Edwards story? I think not.
In my opinion, there are several factors here: First, the story is about a Democrat, so we’re used to that (dems get caught with their pants down), so maybe it’s not much of a story.
The more important part is that if an Enquirer’s reporter will get the prize, then it will be apparent that that all the mainstream media is not much better.
If we are correct in thinking that the lame stream media is way off track and the Enquirer publishes some great journalism that is Pulitzer worthy, perhaps the LSM will wize up, stop looking down their noses at the wothy competition, and return to real journalism after all.
Good going Bernie, you just laid out all the reasons, for Larry Flint to launch a weekly newspaper.
That’s all we need added to the other mix of filth.
What’s the difference between “yellow journalism” and “proper journalism” these days? NOTHING! The NYT has about as much credibility as the Enquirer does, in my mind. When “proper journalists” willfully ignore stories that might be damaging to a politician’s election prospects just to help their guy out, what do you call that? At least the Enquirer doesn’t pretend to have “ethical standards.” How about the NYT-what are their standards?
Pulitzer Prizes have sadly become as meaningful as Nobel Prizes. As a former reporter who worked with several Pulitzer recipients, it has long been obvious that they are handed out to newspapers for successful lobbying. Another comparison is the Heisman Trophy which is earned by college sports information (P.R.) departments. The winner gets a high draft choice but the SID gets the big bucks forever. Bernie, you may recall the year the NYT got left off the Pulitzer list. The Sulzbergers went bonkers. Within a week, the committee announced its mistake and some schlump got an award. Whatever happened to what’s his name. And as for Maureen Dowd, isn’t she just a company flak?
Yeah, I’m not big on the standards of the Nobel committee these days either, given the amazing accomplishments of the previous Peace Prize winner.
Superlative piece, Bernie! It’s going to keep me laughing all the way to the supermarket checkstand, for the latest edition of “You Know What”!
Bernie;
When you consider the origin of the Pulitzer Prize (a yellow journalist) the Enquirer deserves it! And let’s face it, the Enquirer is a specialist in the field, the others are just pretenders. The Old Media doesn’t dive in unless the perp is a Republican or it is just too sexually charged to ignore. They hesitated to report on Bill Clinton’s hijinks and it is well known that the LA Times had those trooper stories until they heard the American Spectator was ready to roll with them.
And here I had come to the conclusion that Yellow Journalism WAS the standard for most Western newspapers. Bernie, the New York Times and the other mainstream media outlets you mention can only wish they had the sheer numbers of committed readers that the Enquirer has. Worse, given the scandalously low level of journalistic ability shown by most of the reporters and commentators in the MSM, the Enquirer should be garnering prizes for it’s almost university level writing, composition, and substance. And talk about unpretentious, at least the Enquirer doesn’t try to be more than it is, unlike much of the MSM which can no longer be taken seriously as news outlets.
The most worrisome aspect for me at least is that newspapers like the New York Times, and electronic media like CNN or NBC, set the bar for journalists abroad, and if they let even their hard news stories get infected with excessive editorializing then foreign journalists believe they too have carte blanche to behave similarly.
And by the way, John Edwards may be a dirt bag of the lowest order, but hey, he’s a politician isn’t he?
Just kidding, regards,
Ken, I remember that during the 2008 election, several foreign newspapers expressed their amusement and shock that the lamestream American media was so “in the tank” for Obama. It was embarrassing to me as an American, and still is.
Ken, you’re right about John Edwards, too. When you start planning the music for your wedding to your mistress before your terminal wife even draws her last breath, you’ve set a new standard for dirt baggery. But, hey, he went down to Haiti to show his concern for the tragedy there (and made sure there were cameras following him), so I guess he plans on making a comeback. Considering that we live in the “United States of Show Business,” as Bernie puts it, a comeback is entirely possible.
Great article, Bernie! The enquirer is obviously looked at quite critically, as most publications of that genre are, & probably for good reason. Discussion of this notion with Megyn Kelly would probably be tedious but she seems like a passionate & intelligent person, & these aspects tend to overwhelm the subject matter itself.
When I think of John Edwards, I immediately remember Mike Huckabee’s comment from the Republican presidential debates when he said “Congress is spending money like John Edwards at a beauty parlor.” I laugh about that every time his name comes up.
If I were a major news organization, I would be personally offended by the notion that a tabloid-type newspaper is even in the running for the Pulitzer. “Humiliation” is a good word for how many of us would be feeling in that circumstance.
I was unaware that the prize was awarded for similar stories in the past & thank you for pointing that out. I don’t know much about the field of journalism, but as a layman I’m suprised they would even be awarded to scandalous stories about a people’s personal lives. Perhaps they should raise the bar a bit higher & attempt to award stories that actually matter.
You say: “Here was a man who might have been president, vice president or attorney general, a man who was a phony and a liar, and it took the “trashy” Enquirer to tell America about him.” I disagree with the notion that his personal life is all that relevant, which was a large part of your article. Secondly, the guy wasn’t going to get the nomination in the first place & most people correctly predicted Obama or Clinton would.
I am reminded of a quote, though the author’s name escapes me: “I don’t want to know who they’re screwing in private, I want to know who they are screwing in public.”
Good luck on O’Reilly’s show tonight, I’ll try to check it out.
fyi: not on o’reilly tonight. on with megyn kelly at 230p ET
Great! I’ll check definetely check it out later. Fox said last night that you were on with Billy tonight, but this just goes to show how fast the world moves.
I wonder how Wil Burns can make this article about George Bush.
Stephen, I think Wil is logged onto the Huffington Post today, with the rest of the Kool-aid drinkers and Bush-bashers.
I think you said a couple of days ago that you were never see a penny of the money you contribute to Social Security. I’m glad you realize that. I’m nearly 60 and will probably be relatively unaffected by the drastic reforms yet to come. It’s good that you realize it’s up to you to provide for your own future, because I think S.S. and Medicare can’t be counted on.
I started saving and investing at a young age, and I can make it just fine without S.S., if I have to. Unfortunately, most people my age and older can’t. They need S.S. to survive. Don’t let yourself ever get into that situation. Live beneath your means, save, and invest, and when you are forced into early retirement by your company, as I was, you can make it financially. Good luck to you.
Thanks Jana, I appreciate the words of wisdom.
It must be true. Only the finest trash gets mentioned in the New York Times & the other real newspapers in the world.
I think the Enquirer deserves the prize. They don’t pick and choose their coverage based on political views. They worked harder and were on the job longer than that peace prize winner guy.
The pookish side of me would like to see the Enquirer win as a way of deflating the stuffed shirt left-stream media that likes to call themselves newspapers but who are really just propaganda sheets.
Maybe if the Enquirer does win, it will inspire some needed self-reflection on their parts so that they can once again provide fair, balanced, in depth news reporting……………………
of course I could be the Queen of England at that time, too. (You may bow appropriately now.)
I agree wholeheartedly with Her Royal Highness.
I worked at a major newspaper, and with few exceptions, it just seemed to be something that you do with your life if you’re a left-winger.
In the face of plummeting subscriptions, they simply blamed it on the internet and continued business as usual. The internet is great for instant information, and a wealth of options, but Newspapers could be the last word in integrity. A renewed commitment to speaking truth to power, and holding all sides accountable could save them, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for that.
Even I could be Queen of England by then. And I’m a guy.
All those liberals you mention were liberal arts majors in college that were brainwashed by their socialist professors. Business school isn’t like that.
Nancy,
You are much more interesting than the Queen. And much funnier too. And a better writer.
Bernie