March 10, 2010--Enquiring Minds Want to Know
A Pulitzer Prize for the National Enquirer? The supermarket rag that publishes articles about Brangelina and Kirstie Alley's weight? You have got to be kidding.
Well, I'm not. According to the unimpeachable New York Times (article linked below), there is evidence that they have been nominated for one and may, believe it or not, actually win. And here I thought the end of civilization was at least a millennium away.
Here's the story.
Though none in the mainstream media (MSM) consider the Enquirer to be a newspaper much less those who write for it to be journalists, in fact it has been the first to break a number real news stories. Important ones. Though admittedly one's that papers such as the gray lady New York Times, even if they had been on their trail, would not have felt very good pursuing. Like the one that may just bring the Enquirer the most esteemed award in all of print journalism--John Edwards' affair and subsequent admission that he had fathered a "love child."
Mind you, this salacious bit of reporting was not an after-the-fact kind of thing. When the Enquirer began to write about him in this way he was still in the thick of the presidential campaign. Thus, this story about Edwards was categorically different than their more typical one's about whether or not Lady Gaga is a guy or a girl.
He was still a credible candidate and there was at least some possibility that he might secure the nomination; or, if not, that he might be named Obama's or Clinton's running mate. Or, as the price for supporting either of them, he could easily have been appointed U.S. Attorney General. Thus his private life or, more appropriately, his misrepresentations and lies about it, was more than fair game for serious reporters. Even if these reporters were on the payroll of the National Enquirer.
There is even a journalistic lesson to be learned from how they pursued the story. Put aside for the moment the fact that it is their common practice to pay for interviews because in this case they strictly prohibited using any information obtained this way in their series of Edwards stories. But the MSM should pay attention to the hard work and techniques Enquirer reporters employed when chasing the story. At a time when traditional reporters are more and more being criticized for laziness, carelessness, and timidity as they cover their beats, those on the trail of the Edwards story were anything but.
After it received a tip that the candidate was fooling around and checking it with multiple sources, the Enquirer published the first of its stories but withheld the name of the woman in question. As they suspected and hoped, this unleashed a torrent of Internet gossip, some of it credible. Soon her name surfaced and quickly after that there were reports that she was pregnant and had moved into a house close to one of Edwards’ chief aides. To stay literally close to the story, the paper rented a house in the same community so its reporters could keep and eye on her, especially any suspicious comings and goings. But they could not locate her nor spot any hanky-panky.
Not to be daunted, since she was reportedly with child, they obtained a list of nearby obstetricians and staked out the offices of a couple of them. On a very hot day, she showed up at one and because she was wearing summer-weight clothing it was apparent she was well along. This also gave the Enquirer photographer the opportunity to get clear shots of her, which the paper promptly published.
Calls to the Edwards camp were not returned but they did hear from his aide who claimed that he was the father of the unborn child and that he and his wife had taken her in and that the three of them were happily living together.
The Enquirer, which has made a lot of money by making things up, was convinced they were being lied to. In the words of one of the reporters who uncovered the story, under for them the subdued headline, “John Edwards Love Child Scandal": “I don’t know a lot of men with the gumption [I would have used a different word] to take their pregnant mistress home to their wife.”
And I would have added, “What self-respecting wife would allow this?”
Though the Edwards camp tried to dismiss the stories as “tabloid trash”—they were appearing in the Enquirer after all alongside other stories about people being abducted by aliens—the savvy tabloiders who had seen and heard it all redoubled their investigative efforts.
When they heard that the woman in question, Rielle Hunter, had checked into the Beverly Hilton they suspected that John Edwards might not be far behind. So they rented rooms for a team of reporters who promptly caught a glimpse of him attempting to slip in for a tryst through a side door. When they pounced, he ran into the bathroom to hide but not before they were able to snap a series of pictures, which they also promptly published. To clinch the deal, and perhaps the Pulitzer, the next day they spotted and photographed him playing with the baby. A baby that looked just like him!
Case closed. Job well done. Now let’s hope the mainstream media take a lesson, get up off heir collective butts, and get to work asking some tough questions. It’s all about speaking truth to power, isn't it, no matter the source.
Well, I'm not. According to the unimpeachable New York Times (article linked below), there is evidence that they have been nominated for one and may, believe it or not, actually win. And here I thought the end of civilization was at least a millennium away.
Here's the story.
Though none in the mainstream media (MSM) consider the Enquirer to be a newspaper much less those who write for it to be journalists, in fact it has been the first to break a number real news stories. Important ones. Though admittedly one's that papers such as the gray lady New York Times, even if they had been on their trail, would not have felt very good pursuing. Like the one that may just bring the Enquirer the most esteemed award in all of print journalism--John Edwards' affair and subsequent admission that he had fathered a "love child."
Mind you, this salacious bit of reporting was not an after-the-fact kind of thing. When the Enquirer began to write about him in this way he was still in the thick of the presidential campaign. Thus, this story about Edwards was categorically different than their more typical one's about whether or not Lady Gaga is a guy or a girl.
He was still a credible candidate and there was at least some possibility that he might secure the nomination; or, if not, that he might be named Obama's or Clinton's running mate. Or, as the price for supporting either of them, he could easily have been appointed U.S. Attorney General. Thus his private life or, more appropriately, his misrepresentations and lies about it, was more than fair game for serious reporters. Even if these reporters were on the payroll of the National Enquirer.
There is even a journalistic lesson to be learned from how they pursued the story. Put aside for the moment the fact that it is their common practice to pay for interviews because in this case they strictly prohibited using any information obtained this way in their series of Edwards stories. But the MSM should pay attention to the hard work and techniques Enquirer reporters employed when chasing the story. At a time when traditional reporters are more and more being criticized for laziness, carelessness, and timidity as they cover their beats, those on the trail of the Edwards story were anything but.
After it received a tip that the candidate was fooling around and checking it with multiple sources, the Enquirer published the first of its stories but withheld the name of the woman in question. As they suspected and hoped, this unleashed a torrent of Internet gossip, some of it credible. Soon her name surfaced and quickly after that there were reports that she was pregnant and had moved into a house close to one of Edwards’ chief aides. To stay literally close to the story, the paper rented a house in the same community so its reporters could keep and eye on her, especially any suspicious comings and goings. But they could not locate her nor spot any hanky-panky.
Not to be daunted, since she was reportedly with child, they obtained a list of nearby obstetricians and staked out the offices of a couple of them. On a very hot day, she showed up at one and because she was wearing summer-weight clothing it was apparent she was well along. This also gave the Enquirer photographer the opportunity to get clear shots of her, which the paper promptly published.
Calls to the Edwards camp were not returned but they did hear from his aide who claimed that he was the father of the unborn child and that he and his wife had taken her in and that the three of them were happily living together.
The Enquirer, which has made a lot of money by making things up, was convinced they were being lied to. In the words of one of the reporters who uncovered the story, under for them the subdued headline, “John Edwards Love Child Scandal": “I don’t know a lot of men with the gumption [I would have used a different word] to take their pregnant mistress home to their wife.”
And I would have added, “What self-respecting wife would allow this?”
Though the Edwards camp tried to dismiss the stories as “tabloid trash”—they were appearing in the Enquirer after all alongside other stories about people being abducted by aliens—the savvy tabloiders who had seen and heard it all redoubled their investigative efforts.
When they heard that the woman in question, Rielle Hunter, had checked into the Beverly Hilton they suspected that John Edwards might not be far behind. So they rented rooms for a team of reporters who promptly caught a glimpse of him attempting to slip in for a tryst through a side door. When they pounced, he ran into the bathroom to hide but not before they were able to snap a series of pictures, which they also promptly published. To clinch the deal, and perhaps the Pulitzer, the next day they spotted and photographed him playing with the baby. A baby that looked just like him!
Case closed. Job well done. Now let’s hope the mainstream media take a lesson, get up off heir collective butts, and get to work asking some tough questions. It’s all about speaking truth to power, isn't it, no matter the source.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home