Archives for January 2010

The National Enquirer broke the story of the John Edwards love-child as many main-stream media outlets dismissed it. Now that the magazine has been proven right, should it be allowed to compete for the Pulitzer Prize?

"Beat the Press" panelists sound off on their rants and raves of the week: Topics include Chris Matthews' faux pas; the Apple iPad; re-thinking the State of the Union; Osama bin Laden drama; and media legislation pushes against bullying, drunk driving, texting and more.

I kind of see it as one of those interesting but pointless hypotheticals - like "What if Superman had landed in Nazi Germany instead of Smallville?" - but the question of whether the National Enquirer should be eligible for a Pulitzer Prize seems to have generated some significant interest lately.

The Enquirer was understandably gloating this week when former presidential candidate John Edwards finally admitted fathering a child with his former campaign videographer, Rielle Hunter. The Enquirer's early and comprehensive coverage of Edwards' philandering forced mainstream media outlets to play catch-up and eventually forced destroyed Edwards' political career.

But Enquirer Executive Editor Barry Levine's assertion last week that the tabloid deserved Pulitzer consideration for its reporting was greeted by general tsk-tsking by mainstream media types, mostly on ethical grounds. The Enquirer makes no bones about the fact that it pays sources for dirt ... er, information, a practice most other news outlets consider verboten.

Levine admitted that the tabloid's open-checkbook policy helped during the Edwards story, but insisted that the Enquirer's investigation involed "every aspect of reporting, from pursuing financial documents to stakeouts to cultivating sources."

"Along the way, there were times when some sources came out of the woodwork and, for a tip fee, would lead us in another direction and help with the story," Levine told the Washington Post's Howie Kurtz.

Ultimately, the Pulitzer Committee today declared the tabloid ineligible because it defines itself as a "magazine," while the prizes are limited to newspapers and news web sites, ABC News reported on its web site.

What do you think? If the Enquirer hadn't been eliminated on a technicality, should it have been considered for print journalism's most distinguished honor?

Update:  "The piece didn't develop until after the election," Herald editor Kevin Convey explains via email. "Had it popped up beforehand, we would gladly have run it."

Today's Boston Herald cover story takes a fascinating look at Scott Brown's youthful modeling career--a period Brown would apparently rather not discuss, and in which he didn't yet have the average-Joe-with-a-truck persona that propelled him into US Senate. Writes Jill Radsken:

[P]hotographer Carolyn Ross...photographed Brown for Jordan Marsh and Work Guard, a workwear company. "He had a good look - dark hair and handsome," she said.

Ross lost track of Brown, but re-enountered him last year at a charity event. She had won a Boston-themed basket in a silent auction that included a lunch date with then-state Sen. Brown. But when her husband called to arrange the get-together, his assistant seemed reluctant to acknowledge Brown's pin-up past.

"The assistant told me, ‘Scott Brown doesn't know your wife and never modeled,' " Ross' husband said.