Does this story merit a Pulitzer? Yes, it might well do so. Should the
National Enquirer receive one? No. For one thing, more than one technicality should keep the supermarket tabloid out of the running. Pulitzer administrator Sig Gissler has been quoted as saying the tabloid calls itself a magazine, which would disqualify it from receiving a prize for newspaper reporting. Personally, I think that’s a bit cheesy. Alternatively, Pulitzers are rewarded for reporting done in the previous year; since the
Enquirer broke the story in July 2008, and this year’s Pulitzers would be awarded for reporting in 2009, the Edwards story may not qualify. That’s not a lot better, but it is in the rules.
The essential issue, however, is a philosophical or professional one. The point is not the value of the story itself, but the professionalism of the organization. I don’t believe the
Enquirer is qualified to win a Pulitzer because it doesn’t adhere to the same standards of performance excellence as other news organizations. Pulitzers are awarded to newspapers that do the hard, slogging work of reporting news day in and day out, week in and week out, year after year. The
Enquirer slings a lot of mud. It readily pays money for news tips, stories, and interviews, which is a practice generally frowned upon in the mainstream media. It’s sensationalistic, voyeuristic, and not above taking unprofessional chances to force its subjects’ (one might almost say victims’) hands. The paper is routinely sued (and quietly settles most of those lawsuits) for regularly ignoring journalistic standards of proof, evidence, and verifiability. That it has scooped the mainstream press on a number of significant news stories (Monica Lewinsky, O.J. Simpson’s denial that he ever owned Bruno Magli shoes, Tiger Woods’s affairs) is outweighed by the many successful lawsuits brought against it and apologies for false stories (alleged public drinking by Carol Burnett, Elizabeth Smart supposedly involved in a “gay sex ring,” a reputed Cameron Diaz affair that turned out to be based solely on a photo of the actress hugging a friend). Has the
Enquirer ever done a news story on, say, the economy? Or Congressional voting habits? Or civil rights or demographic shifts or any of a variety of traditional news topics? No.
In a sense, the
Enquirer made itself the boy who cried wolf by the time it got its hands on the Edwards paternity story. Because it had played around in the muck for so many decades -- often making charges without sufficient proof -- other news sources refused to pick up the story or investigate it for themselves. That is their shame. But that the
Enquirer happened to be right is not necessarily cause for corresponding glory. If it were to be honored with a Pulitzer, it should also have to give it up the next time it emblazons a story that sells millions of issues and turns out not to be true. Because I strongly suspect that in less than a year, it will.
Posts
