Enquirer Pulitzer?

[john hamer]

Powerful piece on why The National Enquirer deserves a Pulitzer:

http://gawker.com/5464324/theres-no-good-reason-the-national-enquirer-
shouldnt-win-a-pulitzer-prize

Were they doing Journalism That Matters? My vote: Yes. What do other
JTMListers think?

John Hamer
President
Washington News Council
www.wanewscouncil.org

[Tracy Record, WSB Editor]

don't have time to read the article but I'm aware of the story.
Yes, it was journalism that matters.
And funny thing, I have been actually singing the Enquirer's praises for years. "They're NOT the Weekly World News - they actually REPORT STORIES." But kind of like the way we get lumped in with an amorphous mass of "bloggers," some of whom are just "opinion," they have always been lumped in with "tabloid" - many of which DO fake stuff, so far as I can tell. (RIP WWN, btw.)

Tracy in WS

--- On Fri, 2/5/10, john hamer <jha...@wanewscouncil.org> wrote:

> --You received this message because you are subscribed to
> the Google Groups "Journalism That Matters" group.
> To post to this group, send email to jtm...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jtmlist+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jtmlist?hl=en.
>
>

[Powers, Kathleen]

Just read this aloud in my newsroom (the Gawker story). Those not on the
phone or on deadline agreed the Enquirer deserves the prize.

(Not sure if that means slackers/those not covering the jumper in
Brookline MA are better judges of merit, but there you are.)

Tracy in WS

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Journalism That Matters" group.
To post to this group, send email to jtm...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jtmlist+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jtmlist?hl=en.

The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, may be protected by the attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or may constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete all copies of it from your computer system. Any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

[Tish Grier]

very well-reasoned argument for giving the Enquirer the Pulitzer.

but, maybe the dif. is whether they are a news org or a magazine.

interesting parallel between the Enquirer with Edwards and the Times with Spitzer. Maybe it was the Times that shouldn't have got it.

Tish

Social Media Strategist and Blogger
blog: http://spap-oop.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tishgrier
land: 413-203-1339

cell: 413-265-1500

[Maurreen Skowran]

I'll be the loyal opposition.

1. In 2009, the period covered by the next Pulitzers, Edwards was
neither in office nor running for office. The only reason he is a
public figure is because of hist past. He doesn't matter to me. Now,
the story has less public import. The Enquirer had more of an argument
for its 2008 coverage, but that time is past.

2. I am queasy about checkbook journalism. And Pulitzer criteria also
includes adhering "to the highest journalistic principles," which is
also not a focus on celebrities and scandals. (You can argue that no
publication perfectly adheres to the highest principles. But I will go
with the spirit of the rule.)

3. Like it or not, Pulitzer rules specifically exclude magazines.
Putting aside any specific story, why should the Enquirer be more
eligible than a news magazine? If the Enquirer wants to compete in a
newspaper contest for investigative reporting, it should have
investigated the rules. The Enquirer could have at least decided to
call itself a newspaper and not a magazine.

4. Pulitzers recognize the quality of both the reporting and the
writing! I have read little of the Enquirer! But it sure uses a lot of
exclamation points!

5. Saying that the Enquirer should be a contender is different from
saying that it should win. We don't know what other work has been done
that could be at least as worthy.

[Ross Williams]

I'm with Maureen. I am not sure this is anything more than a celebrity story.

The other thing, as the writer notes in his story, the mainstream media ignored this story even AFTER the Enquirer reported it. In other words, this Enquirer's reports were not considered news. It may be that the Enquirer deserves more credit than it gets, but the reality is that it has a reputation of not always being careful with its facts.  It can't "break" a story.

Ross Williams
Advocacy Technologies
twitter.com/rosscwilliams

[Tracy Record, WSB Editor]

I would suggest the ugly reality of why the "mainstream media" ignored the story had nothing to do with the Enquirer's reliability or lack of same. It's an icky but very real side of media competitiveness (maybe paralleled in other industries?) - the wrongheaded but common philosophy of, if someone else breaks a big story, one not easily replicable, ignore it for as long as they can and hope it goes away. THAT'S what I think happened here, NOT "oh, that can't be real."

tr, who used to buy the Enquirer, hasn't in a long time, will admit to having not read the Pulitzer rules, so you all may be right on that score, but still thinks they deserve more cred!

--- On Sun, 2/7/10, Ross Williams <rosswi...@advocacytechnologies.org> wrote:

[Gail Robinson]

Another difference might be that Spitzer was a sitting governor and
Edwards was, by the time most if the sory broke, a failed presidential
candidate. TheTimes' stories led Spitzer to resign. You can argue that
the Enquirer story kept Edwards out of the Obama administration but
that link is a bit more tenuous.

Of course the Times has an in on PUlitzer prizes given the links
between the Sulzbergers and Columbia so that may be the real difference.