By JESSICA PARROTTA
The National Enquirer magazine should not be considered qualified to win the Pulitzer Prize in journalism, even though it entered the newspaper's breaking coverage of the John Edwards scandal.
The tabloid entered itself under the category “for a distinguished example of investigative reporting by an individual or team,” the criteria on the Pulitzer Prize web site reads.
The issue is not so much the technicalities that impede the coverage from winning the prize, or the fact that it is not a newspaper, but the differences in credibility and morals between the publication and the prize.
The qualifications for a Pulitzer Prize contestant are that they must be “a text-based United States newspaper or news site […] that adheres to the highest journalistic principles,” reads the Pulitzer Prize web site.
Though the Enquirer’s work is commendable for a tabloid, I do not think they deserve to be eligible for the prize because of their insufficient, probably unethical, reporting.
I don’t think the National Enquirer should be disqualified from the Pulitzer simply for being a tabloid. News is news, regardless of whether it is packaged in a tabloid or a magazine or a newspaper.
Furthermore, the National Enquirer gives readers news they won’t get anywhere else, many of them online exclusives not found anywhere else in online or print media. However, the quality and integrity behind their reporting is not Pultizer-worthy.
The New York Times released an article on John Edwards, admitting to the news media that he was the father of his mistress’ daughter on Jan. 21, 2010. That would not make it eligible for a Pultizer Prize for 2009, but it had many commendable sources, including Edwards’ spokesperson, statements he made to the media, a former aide and a longtime confidant and adviser.
Meanwhile, the National Enquirer published a story about John’s confession to his wife, Elizabeth, that he was the father of the love-child March 8, 2009 - but only quoted one “close source” online.
The National Enquirer does not maintain the Pulitzer’s moral journalistic standards. The Pulitzer prize looks for entries that exhibit high journalistic standards: “We mean values such as honesty, accuracy and fairness, values that govern the way news is gathered and the way it is presented,” their web site said.
The Enquirer regularly practices checkbook journalism, and it has not been disproved that this was not a practice employed in finding or breaking the John Edwards coverage.
Additionally, “any significant challenge to the honesty, accuracy or fairness of an entry” must be submitted with a contestant’s entry. It is known that tabloids do not hold themselves up to newspaper standards.
Though the National Enquirer’s stories were often investigative and newsworthy, their lack of ethics and low-quality reporting is what puts them lower than the Pulitzer’s standards. For these reasons, they should not be eligible for their entry to win this year’s Pulitzer Prize. |
