3 ms·

Well... "National Enquirer Now Legit, According to Pulitzer Prize Board" https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/national-enquirer-now-legit-pulitzer-prize-board/

Well... "National Enquirer Now Legit, According to Pulitzer Prize Board" https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/national-enquirer-now-legit-pulitzer-prize-board/story?id=9887329 https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/national-enquirer-now-l... "Shock! Horror! National Enquirer wins a Pulitzer. Not" https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/apr/13/shock-horror-national-enquirer-pulitzer https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/apr/13/shock-horror-n... Evidently, the Pulitzer has lost its way, much like the rest of Journalism.

rideontime 4y ago
Your links don’t support your conclusion.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  Support? The NE is a rag. A self-professed rag. But suddenly - cash under the table? - it's professional journalism? Lips stick on a pig...is still a pig. And you can sprinkle magic pixie dust on a turd and make it something else. If the likes of The NE can get a Pulitzer, then that prize has lost its meaning and significance. Let's not be so naive, please.
  - mattkrause 4y ago
    As your Guardian link says, the National Enquirer did not actually win a Pulitzer. If you think of the prize as being given for results rather than the process, it’s not that wild: they broke a major story that affected a presidential election. People occasionally find something valuable while digging through the trash, which seems like a pretty apt analogy. Likewise, the Nobel prize for grapheme was effectively for scribbling with a pencil on Scotch Tape and repeatedly pulling it apart. I used to do this in elementary school, but does it cheapen the Nobel Prize? I’d argue no, the prize is——-in part——-for realizing what you’ve got.
  - rideontime 4y ago
    Did you read the article you linked?
DoctorOW 4y ago
After reading the entirety of those two articles, it seems the consensus is the story was good enough to prove it is possible for a well written story to come out of the National Enquirer, as evidenced by the fact that they did break a huge story. I'm aware that this evidence does not match what you feel about the National Enquirer but I disagree that not ignoring evidence to backup popular bias is a flaw in journalism as a field.

rideontime 4y ago

Your links don’t support your conclusion.

chiefalchemist 4y ago
Support? The NE is a rag. A self-professed rag. But suddenly - cash under the table? - it's professional journalism? Lips stick on a pig...is still a pig. And you can sprinkle magic pixie dust on a turd and make it something else. If the likes of The NE can get a Pulitzer, then that prize has lost its meaning and significance. Let's not be so naive, please.
- mattkrause 4y ago
  As your Guardian link says, the National Enquirer did not actually win a Pulitzer. If you think of the prize as being given for results rather than the process, it’s not that wild: they broke a major story that affected a presidential election. People occasionally find something valuable while digging through the trash, which seems like a pretty apt analogy. Likewise, the Nobel prize for grapheme was effectively for scribbling with a pencil on Scotch Tape and repeatedly pulling it apart. I used to do this in elementary school, but does it cheapen the Nobel Prize? I’d argue no, the prize is——-in part——-for realizing what you’ve got.
- rideontime 4y ago
  Did you read the article you linked?

DoctorOW 4y ago

After reading the entirety of those two articles, it seems the consensus is the story was good enough to prove it is possible for a well written story to come out of the National Enquirer, as evidenced by the fact that they did break a huge story. I'm aware that this evidence does not match what you feel about the National Enquirer but I disagree that not ignoring evidence to backup popular bias is a flaw in journalism as a field.