Post User Polls

National Enquirer eligible for Pulitzer?

The executive editor of the National Enquirer says he plans to enter his paper's work on the John Edwards scandal for a Pulitzer Prize. Read Howard Kurtz's full piece.

By Jodi Westrick  |  January 21, 2010; 3:06 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Risking your life to save another on Metro | Next: How do you feel about D.C.'s new bag tax?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Sure, why not? Now that the Weekly World News has folded, the Enquirer might finally have a shot at it.

Posted by: ComfortablyDumb | January 21, 2010 5:33 PM

The days of liars running for office are over with the 2008 election cycle.
What a horrible unvetted choice we had.

Whoever will go after the scummy 2008 candidates as liars is worth reading.

Wapo should go after Obama's illegally secreted intel, and be the one with the story first.


Vetting for 2012 on both corrupt partys is the best bet to retain a consumer.
The Government checks are no good, so a long term run on being bought with dole on the backs of the unborn , is just not wise business.

Posted by: dottydo | January 21, 2010 7:54 PM

Oddly enough I trust the National Enquirer as a news source more than the WaPo or other mainstream news source because it doesn't have pretensions of being anything more than it is.

Posted by: patrick3 | January 21, 2010 11:52 PM

What is the point of this question? They ARE currently eligible for a Pulitzer. That is a FACT.

Is the real question being asked, "Should the National Enquirer be seriously considered for a prize?"

Posted by: Wallenstein | January 22, 2010 8:47 AM

What is the point of this question? They ARE currently eligible for a Pulitzer. That is a FACT.

Is the real question being asked, "Should the National Enquirer be seriously considered for a prize?"

Posted by: Wallenstein | January 22, 2010 8:47 AM
__________________________________________

Something in WaPo badly written? YOU LIE!

Posted by: gbooksdc | January 22, 2010 12:10 PM

Being as how these days it's hard to tell the National Enquirer from much of the Post's Style section, why not?

Posted by: andym108 | January 22, 2010 12:35 PM


Why not the Enquirer? Somebody has to print the truth and not sit on it as the MSM did with John Edwards.

Now if the MSM would only get off the information they have on Obama on which they have been sitting.

Posted by: janet8 | January 22, 2010 1:16 PM

Why not?

Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for campaign speeches!

Posted by: postfan1 | January 22, 2010 1:58 PM

It would be sweet to see the National Enquirer win the Pulitzer at a co-ceremony as Palin wins the Nobel for Literature. All depends on who does the voting, I guess.

Posted by: steveboyington | January 22, 2010 2:02 PM

A number of years ago, a now-deceased friend of mine with two other friends all got together and fabricated a story of a guy who turned his roommate into a coffee table and submitted it to the enquirer.

The rag actually BOUGHT the story AND printed it, never realizing that it was completely untrue.

NO to the Pulitzer for the enquirer. It's only fit for lining cat litter boxes and birdcages. Leave the Pulitzer to REAL newspapers.

Posted by: Alex511 | January 22, 2010 2:24 PM

Besides the WSJ & Christian Science Monitor the National Enquirer is the ONLY other NEWSpaper: as opposed to propaganda rag.

Posted by: craigslsst | January 22, 2010 3:56 PM

Regardless of the quality of the other 99.9 % of its stories...the Prize is awarded for a single story that has merit..not on the publications past or present history.

After all..this story was piciked up and is still carried by other "real" news services.
That is all the validation needed.

Posted by: travisg2 | January 22, 2010 4:45 PM

The Natinal Enquirer has won serious journalism awards in the past. In the early 1980s they won for their medical reporting on arthritis.

Posted by: blasmaic | January 22, 2010 5:22 PM

The National Enquirer did what the main-stream media could not, or would not do.

Posted by: DualTurbos | January 22, 2010 5:25 PM

I agree with the eligibility of the National Enquirer to recieve any prize, offered. What I do not understand is why anyone would agree with the creditability
of the Nobel Prize committee. POLITICS, POLITICS, POLITICS.....I for one, have lost all respect for the Nobel Prize and the LOOSER who recieves it......

Posted by: LandoftheLost | January 22, 2010 8:26 PM

I agree with the eligibility of the National Enquirer to recieve any prize, offered. What I do not understand is why anyone would agree with the creditability
of the Nobel Prize committee. POLITICS, POLITICS, POLITICS.....I for one, have lost all respect for the Nobel Prize and the LOOSER who recieves it......

Posted by: LandoftheLost | January 22, 2010 8:28 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company