CNN recently wrote an article about a “new era for The National Enquirer.” The tabloid rag was recently being considered for two Pulitzer Prize awards, which is the most prestigious award for journalism. It was up for Investigative Reporting and National News Reporting. Many people were outraged by the news, while others thought it was time that the magazine finally got the credit it deserves. I have mixed feelings about the news of the award because, although I don’t want to give The National Enquirer that much credibility, there is no doubt that the magazine has broken many important stories.
There is a definite hierarchy that exists within the media. Mainstream media, like The New York Times, are at the top of the news hierarchy and tabloid magazines, like The National Enquirer, are at the bottom of the news hierarchy. People don’t give much credibility to tabloid magazines because of their titillating stories that usually aren’t based on any real facts.
I have often thought about these types of magazines and websites as trash. The National Enquirer and tabloid media are a guilty pleasure that I indulge in often, but I take their news with a definite grain of salt. I do not actually think that Jesus has risen or that Elvis is still alive (two stories that I have seen multiple times in the Enquirer’s headlines). And, I do not care about a 600-pound baby or plastic surgeries that have gone wrong. However, it seems that lately the National Enquirer has used it’s “gotcha” tactics to expose stories about important political figures. Because of that, most other news mediums seem to be way behind the investigative abilities of tabloid magazines.
The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards affair with Rielle Hunter. They were the first to say that he had fathered an illegitimate child. Without the Enquirer bringing light to this scandal, John Edwards might have gone on to have some legitimacy in the election or in the new Obama administration.
The Enquirer also gave news about the latest O.J. Simpson trial, it broke Gary Hart’s affair, and the list goes on. This is why the newspaper is being considered. The fact of the matter is, though it may be trash, they have had some serious success in investigative reporting and national news. Barry Levine, the executive editor for the magazine, hopes that even the mere consideration of the award would help with the magazines credibility.
“It’s a great day at The National Enquirer for us to be in the running for a Pulitzer Prize,” said Levine “I think the mainstream media can never again take the Enquirer and dismiss us.”
However, I do not think that there is going to be a true “new era” for The National Enquirer. It is true that they have broken important stories, but I don’t think that people are ready to take them seriously. Even after the news of the award, the Enquirer’s position on the news hierarchy still remains. For example, the Enquirer’s stories aren’t given any validity until another more credible news source also gives the same information. The Enquirer broke the information about Larry King’s divorce from his eigth wife, but the information wasn’t given credibility until People magazine also broke the news.
Every tabloid medium is subjected to this type of treatment. TMZ was the first to report about Michael Jackson’s death, but CNN wouldn’t verify the information until their own team of expert reporters gave the “ok.” I didn’t believe TMZ until CNN finally made the confirmation.
There’s no doubt that The National Enquirer brings on this treatment on its own. Reporters for the magazine continuously write outlandish and untrue stories. Barry Levine was recently on The View and Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg criticized him on the truth of the magazine’s stories. They brought up a recent news article in the magazine that said that Walters was having an affair with Frank Langella, Whoopi’s ex. Both women said that they never had a reporter verify the information with them and Walter’s criticized Levine by saying the story was “baloney.” Levine’s comeback was to simply state that he trusted his sources.
There’s no doubt that the Enquirer will continue to go on with these types of stories, but there’s definite credit to be given. The Enquirer has had some serious success in the past few years. Even though they didn’t win the Pulitzer (more legitimate news sources ended up being awarded), it has made me reconsider my belief in these types of magazines.
So, the next time I see a cover about Tupac being seen alive, I just might give it a second glance.
Effective Response 
i guess it’s like taking a hundred blind-folded basketball shots, eventually one or two will go in. I guess these kind’s of “news sources” have the “balls” or just lack of credibility to take a lot of shots, and maybe one will go in.
These people’s batting average can’t be that good (sorry another sports analogy)
and because of that I don’t see them to be a true contender for such a prestigious awards. But you’re post does shine a dim light on these kind of stories. Thanks.
While the National Enquirer did break stories such as the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter affair, it must completely eliminate its Onion-like stories and instead focus on real journalism if it has any prospects of becoming a legitimate news publication.
When people see a magazine on the store counter whose headline is “Evil Frogs attack Washington D.C.,” readers have a hard time taking the magazine seriously. At the same time, creating such ridiculous stories generates sales for the National Enquirer and is the heart of their business.
It all comes down to one question: is the Enquirer willing to continue to sell out in order to make a buck (which they have been doing for over 80 years) or instead abandon such absurd tactics in favor of professional reporting (while possibly sacrificing revenue).
I agree with the top comment. Though many people just like to write it off, the National Enquirer has actually done wonders in terms of breaking stories which actually later turn out to be true. Something should be rewarded in that, right? The fact is the reputation of this specific media outlet is tainted, as it runs as the leader of the trashy tabloid circuit. The bigger issue I think is how yellow journalism and sensationalism has resurged in today’s news market as the only profitable part of the industry. This is the lifeblood on which some media rely because that’s all that will sell today. So before snooty journalists point the finger at the grocery rag, why don’t they look at the paying consumer?
I still do not believe that the National Inquirer participated in true investigative journalism that would make it worthy of winning such an award- a nomination sure, and sure enough it did not win. When 3rd party sources come to try and embarrass stars, most of the time their stories are completely fabricated, and that is most of what the Inquirer does. They were lucky that this story proved true, but I doubt a great journalistic effort was accomplished.
Many other commenters seem to champion the Inquirer for making the most of its economic potential, even at the sacrifice of honest reporting. And yes, it is upsetting that papers like the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are slowing running out of funds, but they should not lose their integrity just so they can turn a profit. If all papers operated under a purely profit-driven model, then we would have the worst news system in the world because sadly, Americans today are more concerned with gossip and scandal that serious large scale issues. We need good papers and prestigious awards like the Pulitzer to keep journalists striving to do good.