If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(GET OUT OF THE WAY)   Weird: Columnist argues the National Enquirer should win the Pulitzer Prize. Fark: She kinda has a point   (politicsdaily.com) divider line 102
    More: Interesting, Pulitzer, Elizabeth Edwards, National Enquirer, John Edwards, Pulitzer Prizes, John Edwards Scandal, Rielle Hunter, Andrew Young  
•       •       •

27244 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2010 at 6:07 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-01-10 04:51:03 PM
MSM didn't have the balls to do it.
 
2010-01-10 05:19:01 PM
weeklyworldnews.files.wordpress.com
"Best investigative journalism on the planet."
 
2010-01-10 05:31:41 PM
The Enquirer has broken a lot of big stories over the years--it's because they will pay people for stories and interviews, which other newspapers won't do.
 
2010-01-10 05:38:45 PM
I don't think 'Baby Daddy' stories deserve awards. Maybe instead of elevating the Enquirer, maybe the Pulitzer people should just issue a obscenity-laced denunciation of the rest of the press?...or give it to Jon Stewart just to fark with Colbert's head.
 
2010-01-10 06:12:57 PM
My home town paper refuses to cover Climategate, and the Editor herself admitted to me: "---we don't cover anything negative about global warming."

Five of the major networks have failed to cover the story, despite it being all over the Innertubes, so I guess if the shoe fits--throw it at George Bush or something.

QUESTION: Can anybody explain to me why I ought to pay for a newspaper, when the people who read it know more about current events than the people who write it?
 
2010-01-10 06:16:21 PM
It's pathetic, really... the so-called "Tabloid Trash" is the last place where real investigative journalism is happening, and the "respected" media is putting out fluff pieces and crap that even the Weekly World News would have passed on.

And then you have The Daily Show, which is more informative than the "real" news.

We're in Bizarro World. Me am not sad.

/me am not also miss Bat Boy.
 
2010-01-10 06:16:31 PM
olddinosaur: My home town paper refuses to cover Climategate, and the Editor herself admitted to me: "---we don't cover anything negative about global warming."

Five of the major networks have failed to cover the story, despite it being all over the Innertubes, so I guess if the shoe fits--throw it at George Bush or something.

QUESTION: Can anybody explain to me why I ought to pay for a newspaper, when the people who read it know more about current events than the people who write it?


Don't you have a cloud to yell at somewhere?
 
2010-01-10 06:16:46 PM
TheOther: I don't think 'Baby Daddy' stories deserve awards.

Regardless of whether you think philandering is newsworthy or not (it's a fair point), when a Senator/someone running for president is paying $15,000 a year to anyone in hush money, it's news. When politicians are subject to blackmail, you end up with things like Ambassador Rielle Hunter deciding foreign policy in some part of the world because she's a successful trollop.

I also happen to think The Onion has broken more news in the past few years than the Washington Post.
 
2010-01-10 06:17:20 PM
If Obama could win the Nobel Peace Prize, why can't the Enquirer win a Pulitzer?
 
2010-01-10 06:17:33 PM
didn't the John Edwards story happen in 2007/2008?
 
2010-01-10 06:17:48 PM
State run media sucks.
 
2010-01-10 06:19:45 PM
With as many half-baked accusations of people sleeping with other people that they make, they would eventually get one right even simply through sheer chance and dumb luck.

I don't call that good journalism.
 
2010-01-10 06:19:50 PM
TFA: the biggest political scandal of 2009, the John Edwards affair.

This was not a "political" story, let alone "the biggest".

If you disagree, petition to give "E!" and "People" a Pulitzer every other day. Morans.
 
2010-01-10 06:20:20 PM
nostudme: State run media sucks.

How did PBS/NPR enter the discussion?
 
2010-01-10 06:20:40 PM
Turfshoe: If Obama could win the Nobel Peace Prize, why can't the Enquirer win a Pulitzer?
 
2010-01-10 06:20:42 PM
Turfshoe: If Obama could win the Nobel Peace Prize, and Al Bore Gore can win another Peace Prize for the Global Warming Hoax, why can't the Enquirer win a Pulitzer?

Fixed it for you.
 
MIU
2010-01-10 06:21:56 PM
Taxcheat: I also happen to think The Onion has broken more news in the past few years than the Washington Post.

The Onion was goddamn prescient at the start of the 2000's. Nevermind news, they predicted it in advance!
 
2010-01-10 06:22:15 PM
olddinosaur: Turfshoe: If Obama could win the Nobel Peace Prize, and Al Bore Gore can win another Peace Prize for the Global Warming Hoax, why can't the Enquirer win a Pulitzer?

Fixed it for you.


[Montgomery Burns pic]
Are you always on?
 
2010-01-10 06:22:50 PM
olddinosaur: My home town paper refuses to cover Climategate, and the Editor herself admitted to me: "---we don't cover anything negative about global warming."

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2010-01-10 06:26:21 PM
olddinosaur: Turfshoe: If Obama could win the Nobel Peace Prize, and Al Bore Gore can win another Peace Prize for the Global Warming Hoax, why can't the Enquirer win a Pulitzer?

Fixed it for you.


Your entitled to your opinion, but I'd have to stay after living in Wisconsin my entire life, I can see why a lot of people do believe in Global Warming. We use to get snow in October, if not definitely snow before Thanksgiving we are lucky now to get snow in November now, and its getting worse are winters are getting shorter.
 
2010-01-10 06:26:57 PM
Hick

He's back!

In comic book form!

i6.photobucket.com
 
2010-01-10 06:26:59 PM
jaytkay: olddinosaur: My home town paper refuses to cover Climategate, and the Editor herself admitted to me: "---we don't cover anything negative about global warming."

good. The editor of your local paper is not a raving idiot like yourself.
 
2010-01-10 06:28:20 PM
MIU: The Onion was goddamn prescient at the start of the 2000's. Nevermind news, they predicted it in advance!

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over' - January 17, 2001 (new window)
 
2010-01-10 06:30:23 PM
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, for dragging the Vietnam War out years after everyone knew it was a lost cause, using "---national prestige---" as a reason to keep fighting.

Using that logic, next year's Nobel Peace Prize ought to go to Iran's Achma-Dinnerjacket, first for "proving" the Holocast was a hoax, thereby retrocatively "saving" the lives of some 6 million Jews who were nefer killed in the first place, and then for developing atomic bombs to "prevent" imperialistic "genocide" in the Middle East.

\\\ my head assplode.
 
2010-01-10 06:31:36 PM
It's a long article, but real interesting book excerpt about the Edwards affair from the New York Magazine (new window)
 
2010-01-10 06:32:26 PM
Edwards could have got away with this if he hadn't paid the mistress out of campaign funds. What is it about rich people/politicians that they refuse to spend their own money?
 
2010-01-10 06:33:38 PM
FTFA:"During the 2008 presidential campaign, the paper was literally on Edwards' heels..."
 
2010-01-10 06:33:46 PM
olddinosaur: Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, for dragging the Vietnam War out years after everyone knew it was a lost cause, using "---national prestige---" as a reason to keep fighting.

Using that logic, next year's Nobel Peace Prize ought to go to Iran's Achma-Dinnerjacket, first for "proving" the Holocast was a hoax, thereby retrocatively "saving" the lives of some 6 million Jews who were nefer killed in the first place, and then for developing atomic bombs to "prevent" imperialistic "genocide" in the Middle East.


"Agrees"
www.thatjobguy.com
 
2010-01-10 06:37:41 PM
olddinosaur 2010-01-10 06:12:57 PM
QUESTION: Can anybody explain to me why I ought to pay for a newspaper, when the people who read it know more about current events than the people who write it?

Given that almost all papers are corporate owned now, and put out a news product instead of the news, there's little reason to subscribe.

But here's most of the reasons I bought a one-year sub a couple days ago (at a steep discount):
1. Allows me to kill 20 minutes at work, unmonitored.
2. Wednesday grocery ads.
3. Thursday event listings.
4. Feel-good sports coverage when the local team does good.
5. Sunday ads.
6. I'm off the Times crossword right now, but sometimes I go on a jag.
7. Notice of nearby deaths and murders.

That's worth 40 cents a day. I drop the sub when it goes full price.
 
2010-01-10 06:37:45 PM
mloree: jaytkay: olddinosaur: My home town paper refuses to cover Climategate, and the Editor herself admitted to me: "---we don't cover anything negative about global warming."

good. The editor of your local paper is not a raving idiot like yourself.


So she's a raving idiot because she believes in the Global Warming Hoax, and I'm a raving idiot because I don't?

Well, here's a real "raving idiot" for you:



"The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time."
-------------DR. ROGER REVELLE Ph.D. ,professor of oceanography, guru to Al Bore Gore, and widely regarded as the "father" of the unproven Global Warming hypothesis.

"--------citation needed--------"

I don't usually to scholarly research for free for lazy scholars, but here ya go: Link (new window)
 
2010-01-10 06:41:55 PM
As the "real" news media becomes more a profit making enterprise, as opposed to the loss leader they once were, their hands become tied by the need to show a profit. They can't have any reporting that will piss off advertisers so reporting on corporations becomes gimped. They can't piss off the government because they will be excluded from the free news releases and interviews with government officials. Instead they increasingly report gossip and fluff, which unsurprisingly the National Inquirer is better at. I'd say in certain respects the National Inquirer might even be a better news source, since you won't see any paid promotional pieces disguised as news, such as thinly disguised movie advertisements for the parent media conglomerate's movie studios.

I'd say what is really bizarre is that an affair is considered news at all. Throughout most of history I think powerful men were simply assumed to have mistresses and polite company was too refined to bring up such a tasteless subject. For reasons outlined above it seems the news media and its clueless consumers now relish in it.

Great Minds Discuss Ideas,
Average Minds Discuss Events,
Small Minds Discuss People.

With the continuing erosion of education, the contempt directed at the educated, I fully expect the trend to continue until all news sources will be indistinguishable from celebrity gossip columns.
 
2010-01-10 06:42:35 PM
Everybody's gotta read that Edwards excerpt, Jesus wotta trainwreck;
Link (new window)
 
2010-01-10 06:43:17 PM
If the Enquirer gets that prize, what will we sneer at? I still encounter people who think it's no more than stories about Elvis and UFOs - I shiat you not. Drew "Bluebeard" Peterson happens to be one of these high-n-mighties.

These people also don't read highbrow publications like The Atlantic or The Economist, since they're just too normal or what have you.
 
2010-01-10 06:43:47 PM
"the biggest political scandal of 2009, the John Edwards affair."

Say wha?
 
2010-01-10 06:46:30 PM
Yes, The Enquirer is known for running stories others would shy away from.

For instance, remember when they ran the first pictures of Timothy McVeigh after his execution as their cover story? Unfortunately, they ran that story the day after he was scheduled to be executed, and the actual execution was delayed until several days later.

Hard-hitting and insightful.
 
2010-01-10 06:47:39 PM
olddinosaur: "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time."

Thanks for the link. That is awesome.

80 YEAR OLD MAN MISQUOTED 20 YEARS AFTER HE DIED
www.thatjobguy.com
 
2010-01-10 06:54:40 PM
Just give it to Obama and be done with it

i230.photobucket.com
 
2010-01-10 06:54:47 PM
mloree: jaytkay: olddinosaur: My home town paper refuses to cover Climategate, and the Editor herself admitted to me: "---we don't cover anything negative about global warming."

good. The editor of your local paper is not a raving idiot like yourself.


Go kill yourself mloree. NOW.
 
2010-01-10 06:55:33 PM
public option: mloree: jaytkay: olddinosaur: My home town paper refuses to cover Climategate, and the Editor herself admitted to me: "---we don't cover anything negative about global warming."

good. The editor of your local paper is not a raving idiot like yourself.

Go kill yourself mloree. NOW.



You need help.
 
2010-01-10 06:57:00 PM
mloree

jaytkay: olddinosaur: My home town paper refuses to cover Climategate, and the Editor herself admitted to me: "---we don't cover anything negative about global warming."

good. The editor of your local paper is not a raving idiot like yourself.


1. How does the hook in your lip feel?

2. If you believe that editors should refuse to cover stories that go against their personal biases (or, more accurately, YOUR personal biases), you're the raving idiot.
 
2010-01-10 06:57:34 PM
olddinosaur: My home town paper refuses to cover Climategate, and the Editor herself admitted to me: "---we don't cover anything negative about global warming."

Five of the major networks have failed to cover the story, despite it being all over the Innertubes, so I guess if the shoe fits--throw it at George Bush or something.

QUESTION: Can anybody explain to me why I ought to pay for a newspaper, when the people who read it know more about current events than the people who write it?


You don't. If enough people in that newspapers circulation area feel the same as you, then either the paper starts to cover the stories that the people want to read, or the paper goes bankrupt.

At least that's the theory.
 
2010-01-10 06:58:00 PM
i230.photobucket.com
 
2010-01-10 07:01:24 PM
Techhell: If enough people in that newspapers circulation area feel the same as you, then either the paper starts to cover the stories that the people want to read, or the paper goes bankrupt.

At least that's the theory.


Surprise, surprise. My hometown paper is in fact losing money, and has had to downsize drastically. They are owned by a conglomerate, otherwise they would have gone broke by now.

They blame it on the Innertubes, but I would say they don't report the news accurately.

It's the difference between journalism and creative writing.
 
2010-01-10 07:03:26 PM
I think that they should win the prize just to spite the other newspapers. Newspaper journalism in this time is less credible than the yellow journalism of the early 1900's. After the Enquirer wins the Pulitzer the owners of all the other papers in the country should fire their entire staff and then wait 10 years and start over from scratch.
 
2010-01-10 07:07:29 PM
jehovahs witness protection: MSM didn't have the balls to do it.

It had nothing to do with balls. The MSM media picks a candidate they wish to win and cover the news to maximize their chosen candidates chance of winning by failing to cover (or minimizing) important negative stories. They also make sure every negative of the opposing candidate, no matter how trivial, makes the front page.

This is not journalism.
 
2010-01-10 07:07:37 PM
olddinosaur: Surprise, surprise. My hometown paper is in fact losing money, and has had to downsize drastically...They blame it on the Innertubes, but I would say they don't report the news accurately.

Are papers who "report the news accurately" making money?
 
2010-01-10 07:10:26 PM
jaytkay: MIU: The Onion was goddamn prescient at the start of the 2000's. Nevermind news, they predicted it in advance!

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over' - January 17, 2001 (new window)


That is just freaking disturbing. Written before 9/11 even...
 
2010-01-10 07:10:46 PM
rev. dave: I think that they should win the prize just to spite the other newspapers. Newspaper journalism in this time is less credible than the yellow journalism of the early 1900's. After the Enquirer wins the Pulitzer the owners of all the other papers in the country should fire their entire staff and then wait 10 years and start over from scratch.

Well, Electro just blew up the Daily Bugle, so that's a start.
 
2010-01-10 07:12:49 PM
olddinosaur: Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, for dragging the Vietnam War out years after everyone knew it was a lost cause, using "---national prestige---" as a reason to keep fighting.

Using that logic, next year's Nobel Peace Prize ought to go to Iran's Achma-Dinnerjacket, first for "proving" the Holocast was a hoax, thereby retrocatively "saving" the lives of some 6 million Jews who were nefer killed in the first place, and then for developing atomic bombs to "prevent" imperialistic "genocide" in the Middle East.

\\\ my head assplode.


Let's not forget Carter and Camp David. Yeah, I know, he tried. But this isn't the Special Olympics where everyone gets a trophy just because you tried.

/actually, comparing the Nobel Peace price to the Special Olympics seems appropriate these days
 
2010-01-10 07:14:48 PM
There is a whole bunch of stupid in these posts so far.

For all the global warming topics: please read state of fear by michael crighton. Story is good but just his real facts and application might make you think twice about global warming.
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report