NATIONAL ENQUIRER & PULITZER PRIZE: MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?

Here are nine worlds I never thought I would write:

The National Enquirer is up for a Pulitzer Prize.

Before I ask you to wrap your mind around those nine words, let’s review a little history about the Enquirer. First, it is interesting to note that the paper has been publishing continuously since 1926. I won’t bore you with the long history of the paper, but if you’re so inclined you can read about it here.

The Enquirer claims it has a circulation of over a million, and that more than nine million people actually read it each week. Those figures are probably high, especially in light of the fact that in the last couple of years the paper has imposed five-day unpaid furloughs on its employees. Papers do not do that unless finances are tight, and finances are not tight unless advertising is down. So, like other newspapers in the country, it is clear that the Enquirer is not cash-rich right now. However, as it turns out, there would be other kinds of riches awaiting the much-maligned Enquirer.

Who could have predicted it would take the sexual dalliances of a Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 to elevate the gravitas of what most Americans considered a rag? Up until candidate John Edwards gave in to his carnal desires with a campaign worker, the Enquirer had a loyal audience who couldn’t resist its salacious editorial offerings, but who rarely really believed much of it. When it was revealed that the Enquirer was right about Edwards, suddenly a lot of us started scratching our heads in disbelief. Then the mainstream media slowly started reporting the story, as if they had initiated it. But the Enquirer was relentless in its coverage, which its owners today say they never paid for. Checkbook journalism had become synonymous with the National Enquirer, but not this time. It was not until the second week in August, 2008, when Edwards fessed about the affair on ABC News that any mainstream publication dared print the story.

All of this brings us back to the nine words: The National Enquirer is up for a Pulitzer Prize – the highest and most prestigious award in journalism. As one who still recalls the days when the Enquirer was running stories about psychic nuns giving birth to aliens, this news is surreal. But it brings forth a number of provocative questions: Why did mainstream media resist their journalistic obligation to pursue the story when the evidence presented itself? If we accept the Enquirer’s contention that no money was paid for information, how did they break the story? And why will they not reveal how they initially got turned on to the story? Should they? They are not legally bound to do so, but from an ethical standpoint, before the Pulitzer board makes a decision, perhaps the Enquirer should come clean about how and from where this information was obtained.

Specifically, the Enquirer is up for investigative reporting and national news reporting awards. As a guy who was trained in traditional journalism, and one who today teaches journalism in a new media world, here is what I think: The Enquirer, despite its tactics, reputation and blatant resistance to conventional journalistic techniques, apparently 'gets' the new world of media, more than say, The Washington Post or The L.A. Times. The new world demands immediacy and stretching the limits of privacy. Why wouldn’t the mainstream media pursue this story? Simple. They didn’t go after the Edwards story because they underestimated the public’s hunger and demand for insider information about high profile people. Some of them probably considered it, but not one of them had the cojones to publish anything about it, simply because the only source of information at the time was the National Enquirer.

Like it or not, we are now in the high tech universe of TMZ.com and Perez Hilton. The more advanced the technology becomes, the more the public expects to know. As far back as 1920, when Photoplay Magazine became the first real movie fan magazine, the public slowly developed its desire to know the inside story of its cultural icons. By the 1970s when People Magazine debuted with Mia Farrow on the cover, that hunger for juicy details seemed to peak. But the real peak had to wait another 25 years or so for the Internet to evolve. Today, celebrities, politicians and other high profile types can essentially kiss their privacy goodbye. Even when they sue for intrusion of privacy, they generally lose, unless they can prove a case of appropriation of their name or likeness. Unfortunately for the John Edwards of the world, appropriation does not extend to news coverage.

So, will the Enquirer win a Pulitzer for its coverage of the John Edwards baby daddy scandal? In every category that is awarded, the prize description includes the words “distinguished example.” Was the Enquirer’s reporting a distinguished example of investigation or national news? I have a feeling the Pulitzer board will not see it that way. After all, we do know some details of the Enquirer’s methods here. Reporters apparently followed Rielle Hunter, Edwards’ lover, to her obstetrician’s office in order to secure photos of the pregnant woman. Reporters cornered John Edwards in a men’s room at the Beverly Hilton Hotel to confront him about the allegations of the affair and paternity. The paper did indeed pay for information about the John Edwards affair – even if they claim they did not pay for information that led to the exact stories that are up for a Pulitzer Prize. So, if we hold that the word “distinguished” refers to excellence, eminence or quality standards, it would seem the National Enquirer doesn’t really cut it.

Still, don’t forget this is not your father’s media world. Remember, the anti-journalist, Matt Drudge was the first reporter to publish the name Monica Lewinsky with initial details of Bill Clinton’s transgression. He was right and mainstream media followed his lead. Further, TMZ.com was the first media outlet to report that Michael Jackson was dead. The news was accurate and then CNN jumped on the bandwagon. The National Enquirer correctly reported in 2003 that Rush Limbaugh was addicted to painkillers, and this followed the paper’s 2001 breaking news that Jesse Jackson had fathered a love child. Do not underestimate alternative, non-mainstream or new media. The truth comes at you from odd places these days, and whether those places are worthy of traditional industry awards remains to be seen. I, for one, am on the edge of my seat.

THE HIGH PRICE OF A GOOD STORY

By now, even the most apathetic media consumer among you knows that journalism is in a transitional period. Traditional media is not faring so well – newspaper circulation is at record lows, magazines have folded, network TV is constantly trying to find new ways to keep you tuned it as you gain more and more cable options. The most valuable capital to trade today is information, and the juicier the better. But with the intense competition among news and information outlets, how can anybody be sure to get the juice fastest and first? Well, to paraphrase an old adage – money talks and ethics walks.

It’s called “checkbook journalism,” and it seems to be more and more prevalent, even with old-line networks. As a journalist and a guy who teaches media ethics, I’ve been keeping a close eye on this for a few years now, but last week my eye almost got poked out (figuratively), when I heard that David Goldman and his son Sean were flown back to the states from Brazil on a jet chartered by NBC. If you are not familiar with the Goldman story, click here.

It is no coincidence that David Goldman (below left, pictured on the NBC plane with his son) sat down for a heart-to-heart with the Today Show’s Meredith Vierra just days after his return from Brazil. NBC paved the way with the free plane trip, and whatever other financial arrangements may have been made.
NBC denies it. The network claims its actions have been misinterpreted. The network spin goes like this: Goldman was booked for the Today Show interview before arrangements were made to fly father and son back to the U.S. It so happens NBC already had a jet chartered to bring it employees home for Christmas. A spokesperson for the network told Associated Press that the Goldmans were “invited on [the plane] as guests,” and the gesture had nothing to do with “booking strategy.”

Here’s my professional response to that: Uh-huh. Right.

Just days later, after man-child terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up Detroit-bound flight 253, the American public was introduced to Jasper Schuringa, the Dutch airline passenger who reportedly threw himself on Abdulmutallab and averted the disaster. Schuringa appeared on CNN (right) to detail his ordeal. CNN reportedly paid a handsome sum to obtain cell phone photos of the scuffle, and denies that the payment had anything to do with booking Schuringa for his appearance on the network. Uh-huh. Right.

Why does it matter, you might ask? So what if a news organization pays for information? After all, the National Enquirer has been doing it for decades and has never tried to hide it. And do not write the Enquirer off so fast, as many are prone to do. The Enquirer is the publication that broke the whole John Edwards baby-daddy scandal. More recently, the Tiger Woods adultery story first appeared in the Enquirer days before any other news organization picked up the story. Still, is there something inherently sleazy about paying for interviews or information?

In a word – yes. Like anything else, when you grease somebody’s palm for whatever product, service or information they can offer, you have leverage on how they offer it. What you media consumers need is truth. That’s the real business of journalism. But when the source of that truth is paid for information, some media organizations may be prone to persuade the source to tell the story in a way that will garner the greatest readership, viewership of online hits. Then the truth is no longer the truth. It becomes a product that can be shaped, twisted or distorted to suit the media organization’s purpose.

News organizations will tell you they don’t pay for stories or interviews. They will tell you that they do indeed sometimes pay “licensing fees” for the use of photos or videos. Anyone who works in the media industries knows those fees actually buy the story. And the public is now savvy enough to know there is some worth to what they have to offer. After the CNN interview Schuringa made it clear that he would not appear on any other broadcast without being paid. And, as you may have noticed, Schuringa has all but disappeared from view. That is because it came out that CNN had paid a “licensing fee” for the use of the cell phone photo. Then Schuringa became too sticky to reasonably touch, so other media organizations took a pass on using him.

The bottom line: Here is who loses the most when the highly questionable practice of checkbook journalism is employed – YOU. The real truth about the events that happen in your world is harder and harder to decipher, and once seemingly reputable journalists or media organizations start paying for information, that information is instantly sullied, and the truth you need exceeds your grasp.