Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, Pulitzer, Elizabeth Edwards, National Enquirer, John Edwards, Pulitzer Prizes, John Edwards Scandal, Rielle Hunter, Andrew Young  
•       •       •

27281 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2010 at 6:07 PM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
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.
 
2010-01-10 07:14:52 PM  

olddinosaur: mloree: jaytkay:
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)


Interesting quote there - if you actually read your link you find that:

a) this quote was made in 1991 - what could we have possibly learned about climate change in the last two hottest decades the earth has ever had since we started measuring?

b) He meand DRASTIC change, he still thought we had to go "beyond" what politicians like Gore were proposing.

/ Why am I debunking climate denialist derp on a thread about the enquirer?
 
2010-01-10 07:15:17 PM  
The new details in this book provide further evidence that the mainstream reporters on the campaign trail with Edwards could have uncovered the adultery and possibly out-of-wedlock child if they had pushed the outraged former staff members for answers.

Why would the left wing liberturd controlled mainstream media want the truth about Edwards or Obama or any other Democrat? That's called career suicide when it's not Nixon or some other Republican. Gennifer Flowers played an answering machine message from Clinton during his first campaign and that was completely ignored.

From Wikipedia:

In December 1996, Gennifer Flowers admitted to her sexual relationship with Bill Clinton on The Richard Bey Show. The show was canceled the following day. Richard Bey later attributed a direct connection between the two consecutive events (see TV appearances). (new window)

After that nobody wants to be the one revealing the truth about the left wing.
 
2010-01-10 07:16:12 PM  
Paging Janet Cooke. Let's ask her.

Give it to them. At least they're not making it up.
 
2010-01-10 07:16:56 PM  

Taxcheat: I also happen to think The Onion has broken more news in the past few years than the Washington Post.


The Washington Post has been resting on its laurels since Watergate.
 
2010-01-10 07:19:26 PM  

jaytkay: 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?


Good question. Does anyone know of any that are reporting accurately?
 
2010-01-10 07:21:25 PM  
MSM is too busy covering PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!PALIN!

/and Jersey Guidos
 
2010-01-10 07:28:13 PM  
True story: I knew a guy once who had a state Fish and Game license to "rehabilitate" snakes that had been injured by cars or whatever, or abused by their owners and then seized by Fish and Game. He decided to have a press conference to explain what he considered to be important work. He invited the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register. One of those papers had a National Enquirer mole on staff, and all three papers sent reporters to the press conference.

The Times got every single fact wrong. Every. Single. Fact. Including the guy's name. Was in the OC Local section, buried by ads. No pics.

The Register played it for laughs, though they did get most facts straight. Last page of local section. No pics.

The Enquirer played it absolutely straight and got every fact right. Page 4 story. With pics.

I know, since I saw all three clippings.
 
2010-01-10 07:33:59 PM  
The homeless nut-jobs spouting-off crap get it right once in a while, too... They don't deserve a Pulitzer for finding specious evidence that accidentally happened to be accurate, and revealing a story that no-one believed, which therefore had no effect on anyone.
 
2010-01-10 07:34:39 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.


If the papers do fire their entire staff and reform in 10 years with new staff under the same business model the results will be the same. Newspapers (and all news media) sell eyeballs to advertisers and the staff simply conforms to the business model. Their customers are the advertisers, not the readers. Creating a well informed readership is simply not a part of the equation, and indeed may be detrimental to the advertiser's interests.
 
2010-01-10 07:45:25 PM  

buckers1: 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.



Fiction. Have it explained to you. I don't have the time.
 
2010-01-10 07:49:09 PM  

That_Dude: didn't the John Edwards story happen in 2007/2008?


--- NOPE !!!
 
2010-01-10 07:56:56 PM  

olddinosaur: 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?


Because serious investigative journalism is extremely expensive, and the blogosphere has not yet found a way to replace traditional reporting. That doesn't mean corporate media is perfect, or that the "new media" is not valuable. Take advantage of the resources currently available and use your head to work out what to believe. Twitter and Facebook don't do real journalism.

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.


Kissinger won the Nobel for the Paris Peace Accords, not his conduct of the war. It's still absurd that he was honored instead of tried for war crimes, but the Nobel Prize committee awards the Peace Prize for specific acts even if the actor is an asshole.
 
2010-01-10 08:04:20 PM  

bookman: The Enquirer played it absolutely straight and got every fact right. Page 4 story. With pics.


Good, because I never doubted this for a moment:

www.freewilliamsburg.com
 
2010-01-10 08:08:03 PM  
demonfaerie 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.



The data beg to differ with you. The heaviest showfall in Madison, WI in the last 125 years happened just recently.

www.aos.wisc.edu
 
2010-01-10 08:09:42 PM  
I can see where she's coming from but really, it's not even well-written fiction.
 
2010-01-10 08:10:48 PM  

Herb Utsmelz: buckers1: 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.


Fiction. Have it explained to you. I don't have the time.


Michael Crichton also believed in spoon bending ^, among other crazy sh*t. The man wrote some fun books, but he was no scientist.
 
2010-01-10 08:13:35 PM  
The National Enquirer may be full of b.s., but if they say you're going to die...you best make arrangements.
 
2010-01-10 08:14:15 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.


That's becasue his hometown paper is The Onion.


/P.S. mloree, you are the worst kind of person there is in this world. A religious fanatic.
 
2010-01-10 08:16:56 PM  

Scorpius.Raven: 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...


Agreed, very disturbing, and yet, so so true
 
2010-01-10 08:20:47 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."


And if your paper's web site allows comments, read them and notice the many critics of the paper's viewpoints.
 
2010-01-10 08:24:19 PM  

buckers1: 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.


His "real facts" were from researchers whose methods were hilarious and essentially amounted to using a dowsing rod.
 
2010-01-10 08:27:48 PM  

bubbaprog: His "real facts" were from researchers whose methods were hilarious and essentially amounted to using a dowsing rod.


Laugh all you want, but Iraq is buying dowsing rods to find explosives. It works great.

EXPLOSIVE FOUND!!1!
www.wired.com
 
2010-01-10 08:51:38 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: demonfaerie 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.


The data beg to differ with you. The heaviest showfall in Madison, WI in the last 125 years happened just recently.


You need to get on board, comrade. Global warming CAUSES heavy snowfalls.
 
2010-01-10 08:52:00 PM  
If the Enquirer wants a prize then it seems only fair that TMZ gets some sort of award since they always are the first source of celebrity bombshells/deaths.
 
2010-01-10 08:52:14 PM  
Tawdry affairs and moral panic are not substantial investigative reporting.
That the National Enquirer should be suggested as the pinnacle US reportage more readily implies that US reportage has diminished in quality, not that the national Enquirer has upped its quality.
Who the frak cares if some guy has a mistress? It's tabloid shiat.
There are actual issues in the world that actually matter.
 
MIU
2010-01-10 08:52:48 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)


Yeah. Try to tell me that isn't farking time travel right there.

Even I was shocked at how right they ended up being.
 
2010-01-10 09:01:37 PM  
Next up for the Pulitzer:

blogs.citypages.com
 
2010-01-10 09:10:08 PM  
 
2010-01-10 09:12:15 PM  
Speaking of awards, wasn't John Edwards also named the biggest douche in the universe?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2010-01-10 09:12:40 PM  
Obviously since every other news organization in America is in a race to become more like the NE with every passing day, they definitely deserve the Pulitzer.
 
2010-01-10 09:13:36 PM  
FTA
"which broke the biggest political scandal of 2009, the John Edwards affair."

You're kidding me right? The biggest political scandal of 2009? Realllly?

Gimme a break.
 
2010-01-10 09:20:07 PM  
Even more troubling: Would a leading Republican presidential candidate have similarly escaped the media's scrutiny?

Exactly. Meanwhile, every liberal in America put their fingers in the ears and screams "la la la la I can't hear you! la la la la"
 
2010-01-10 09:22:15 PM  

pureobscure: Even more troubling: Would a leading Republican presidential candidate have similarly escaped the media's scrutiny?


Hate facts will be made illegal soon.
 
2010-01-10 09:22:19 PM  
Fano: You need to get on board, comrade. Global warming CAUSES heavy snowfalls.

You guys are a moving target. First, one guy says GW is causing shorter winters and less snowfall in WI. Show data indicating this isn't true and now it is "well, GW actually causes increased snowfall". Tell us that the polar icecaps will be non-existent during the summer in the next few years, but the fact is arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007.

Here is a competing theory to your CO2 GW:

Link (new window)
 
2010-01-10 09:43:03 PM  
Yeeeahh...no.
 
2010-01-10 10:07:21 PM  

pureobscure: Even more troubling: Would a leading Republican presidential candidate have similarly escaped the media's scrutiny?

Exactly. Meanwhile, every liberal in America put their fingers in the ears and screams "la la la la I can't hear you! la la la la"


Every liberal I knew, including myself, was absolutely furious with Edwards. Not only was his behavior despicable, it could have been disastrous for the Democratic party if this had come out later, if he won the nomination or was selected as the VP candidate or another high-profile position. His political career is over.

The only reason he "escaped the media's scrutiny" is because there was no controversy. It's not like the story wasn't reported. Republicans said "See! Edwards is a lying asshole!" and Democrats responded by saying, "Yep. F*ck that guy."
 
2010-01-10 10:12:02 PM  
The mainstream media in the USA has become nothing more than the lapdogs of the power establishment. Their bullshiat 'neutrality' is absurd. They are very biased, biased for more government in most cases. They are lazy and often all they really do print/read the press releases from the government in most cases. They don't investigate or check squat. They lack followups. There is a reason they are dying.

The National Enquirer might not be the best paper the planet has ever seen but it looks like while everyone else got fat and lazy they are still busting their ass. Looks like they aren't afraid to take some risks and put in some time. It might not be worth a reward but the way things are going they might be the last ones standing.

/You can't find the truth unless you're willing to be called a kook.
 
2010-01-10 10:29:48 PM  

mod_reright: Every liberal I knew, including myself, was absolutely furious with Edwards. Not only was his behavior despicable, it could have been disastrous for the Democratic party if this had come out later, if he won the nomination or was selected as the VP candidate or another high-profile position. His political career is over.


I'm not a liberal, but I still have to agree with this. I think most were glad to see him gone.

I lived in NC when he was elected to the Senate, and I couldn't understand even back then how people didn't recognize him for what he was. Some folks give off that weasel vibe. He gives off tremors of weaselly nastiness.

Karma wins this time.
 
2010-01-10 10:41:27 PM  

mod_reright: pureobscure: Even more troubling: Would a leading Republican presidential candidate have similarly escaped the media's scrutiny?

Exactly. Meanwhile, every liberal in America put their fingers in the ears and screams "la la la la I can't hear you! la la la la"

Every liberal I knew, including myself, was absolutely furious with Edwards. Not only was his behavior despicable, it could have been disastrous for the Democratic party if this had come out later, if he won the nomination or was selected as the VP candidate or another high-profile position. His political career is over.

The only reason he "escaped the media's scrutiny" is because there was no controversy. It's not like the story wasn't reported. Republicans said "See! Edwards is a lying asshole!" and Democrats responded by saying, "Yep. F*ck that guy."


This affair WAS news. Because here this asshole was going to ride his wife's cancer-ridden corpse to the White House and he was farking around. No, farker, you can't point to "I love my dying wife, can you give me a sympathy vote for seeing that I am a doting husband" when you are nailing someone else.

Affairs are important; if you are a candidate that makes your family a point of your campaign. If you never pretended to be a moral guardian or family man, it's not so bad.
 
2010-01-10 10:53:18 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: Fano: You need to get on board, comrade. Global warming CAUSES heavy snowfalls.

You guys are a moving target. First, one guy says GW is causing shorter winters and less snowfall in WI. Show data indicating this isn't true and now it is "well, GW actually causes increased snowfall". Tell us that the polar icecaps will be non-existent during the summer in the next few years, but the fact is arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007.

Here is a competing theory to your CO2 GW:

Link (new window)


GW is not all powerful. He's got an awesome squint, and he sounds like English is his second language, but he is NOT a communist!
 
2010-01-10 11:19:16 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?


Heh. I bet they never covered the "truth" about 9/11 either.
 
2010-01-10 11:24:58 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.


Zactly
lukeford.net
 
2010-01-11 12:31:23 AM  

polarisTheArcticRescueMoose: I'll just leave this here... (new window)


If you're trying to imply that this single article somehow disproves global warming you've failed to comprehend the point of the article and the author's conclusions. The article is about the fraction of annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions that stay in the atmosphere, it is not about the overall atmospheric CO2 trend, on which the author does not comment at all. All he concludes is that the fraction of annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions that stays in the atmosphere is relatively constant, but only if you play with the data in the ways that he likes. He admits that his work also shows that this fraction is increasing if he uses the methods of previous authors, but he makes no attempt to reconcile the difference.
 
2010-01-11 12:38:32 AM  
What, 100 posts and no attention whore graphic?
 
2010-01-11 12:44:11 AM  

Turfshoe: If Obama could win the Nobel Peace Prize, why can't the Enquirer win a Pulitzer?


Over in however many posts that was.
 
2010-01-11 01:39:22 AM  
In other news, Bat-boy consults a broken clock twice daily.
 
2010-01-11 01:49:51 AM  
More like an Orwell Peace Prize.
 
2010-01-11 08:52:31 AM  
Journalism is dead. Has been for decades. The Enquirer is just as legitimate as any other "news" source.
 
2010-01-11 10:07:34 AM  
It must be true, I read it in the Globe!

www.global-air.com

(new window)
 
2010-01-11 10:22:15 AM  

doubled99: Journalism is dead. Has been for decades. The Enquirer is just as legitimate as any other "news" source.


Do you feel clever for being cynical? The only problem with that would be the fact that making an inane cynical statement is every bit as much an indication not really thinking one's views through in an intelligent matter, as credulously accepting anything one hears is.

There has been much good journalism and much bad journalism since well before you were born. People who aren't intellectually lazy learn to distinguish the two, and (to this day, as they always have) manage find the former in spite of the latter. And then there are the people who just smugly say "It's all the same bull" and think they're showing themselves to be adroit critical thinkers by doing so, when in fact, it just make it look like they're finding a convenient way of exempting themselves from bothering to pay attention to the information available through journalism.
 
2010-01-11 10:36:14 AM  
Isildur 2010-01-11 10:22:15 AM

doubled99: Journalism is dead. Has been for decades. The Enquirer is just as legitimate as any other "news" source.

Do you feel clever for being cynical? The only problem with that would be the fact that making an inane cynical statement is every bit as much an indication not really thinking one's views through in an intelligent matter, as credulously accepting anything one hears is.

There has been much good journalism and much bad journalism since well before you were born. People who aren't intellectually lazy learn to distinguish the two, and (to this day, as they always have) manage find the former in spite of the latter. And then there are the people who just smugly say "It's all the same bull" and think they're showing themselves to be adroit critical thinkers by doing so, when in fact, it just make it look like they're finding a convenient way of exempting themselves from bothering to pay attention to the information available through journalism.



I've always been clever-it led to cynicism, not the other way around.
Sure, by definition, there is journalism being practiced here and there, usually in the form of very local stuff.
What is called "mainstream journalism" is nothing but storytelling repeated from one source to another with fact checking to come later. Just print what you find on the wire services, thank you. We'll figure it out later.
Sorry to bum you out when you're really getting into your college journalism courses, but everything you're being taught is bullshiat.
 
2010-01-12 05:15:21 AM  

doubled99: What is called "mainstream journalism" is nothing but storytelling repeated from one source to another with fact checking to come later. Just print what you find on the wire services, thank you. We'll figure it out later.


Mainstream journalism gets plenty wrong. What amuses me about many of the people I've talked with who express such disdain for it, however, is that they prefer instead to get their information from even less reliable sources. A number of them claim to be drawing in information from many disparate viewpoints, that they synthesize into a balanced understanding of world events, except it eventually becomes clear in conversation that they really just spend a few minutes a day browsing Daily Kos or Free Republic or whatever slanted site best matches their worldview, and follow a few similarly selected blogs.

Sorry to bum you out when you're really getting into your college journalism courses, but everything you're being taught is bullshiat.

Already finished college a few years ago, and didn't take any journalism courses, but thank you for the demonstration of your piercingly acute deductive abilities. My regards to Mrs. Hudson.
 
Displayed 102 of 102 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report