I'd like the panel to discuss the conflict of interest re: the New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Ethan Bronner. Bronner's son serves in the Israeli Defense Forces and readers alerted the New...
Should the National Enquirer be eligible for a Pulitzer Prize?
posted by Ralph Ranalli on January 25, 2010
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?
Comments
Absolutely they should have, and the Committee's decision to hide behind the "magazine" skirt is laughable.
"60 Minutes" calls itself a news magazine. Should they be ineligible for an Emmy?
Whatever the Enquirer calls itself, it is demonstrably a newspaper.
Now, whether the story itself rises to Pulitzer level (and frankly, I'm not even sure of the criteria) I don't know. But it seems to me, it absolutely should have been in the mix.
I agree with Harrybosch that the Enquirer shouldn't have been ruled out on the magazine technicality. But it should have been ruled out because it pays sources — not a technicality at all, but something that goes right to the heart of journalistic integrity.
Hi Ralph, Dan, Harry, ALL
ST: Yep Eligible, B_MMMs on the Field
The backfield is in Motion for the Media Moguls'
Emily on a recent show discussed how many journalists in print and TV send gifts, quite substantial, to people they wish to interview FIRST. Only Callie stood alone against this practice.
So who decides how much money a Gift IS?
MANY_MrDave: I am completely against the practice of paying for interviews, whether directly or indirectly. We don't always get to give a full comment on every issue that comes up.
Hi BU-Dan,
ST: Dan Kennedy standing with Callie ??
Quick One Dan as I move on to other stuff.
First Off I am surprised that you are against this SOP (standard operating practice)
Somehow You(Dan Kennedy) have to find a way to get your message OUT and On Stage.
Maybe it is A mind twist that you need so that Excellent Journalism is your focus when giving your piece to each week's show. Don't let Emily lead the Show is another tactic. You quite often fall into Emily's conversation, yet maybe you should stand outside.