The National Enquirer as a legitimate source

[AlanC]

Since the Edward's story broke there has been some considerable discussion as to whether or not the National Enquirer should be considered a source, much less a credible source, of news information.

The following article is from Slate, which is hardly a conservative source and it presents some interesting information.

The jist of it is that while the Enquirer may mislead with it's headlines, it seems to present some pretty reliable facts within it's stories.

By the time of the 1994 Nicole Brown Simpson-Ron Goldman murders, the Enquirer truth machine had become so good that reporter David Margolick was toasting it in the New York Times for scooping the competition—and applauding it for spiking many of the false stories that appeared in mainstream media.

I wonder if the NYT still feels the same way?

Link to the whole article (http://www.slate.com/id/2102303/)

Now before everyone wants to run out and prove me wrong, I'm not making any claims for accuracy of the Enquirer, I am only saying that this article is both interesting and informative in a way I was unaware of.

[Stoner]

NE is not a reliable source but that doesn't mean it doesn't get stories right. Libbies know this, they just prefer to trounce it because the story is trashing one of their own. If the story was reversed and it had alledged pictures of Bush or Cheney holding an illigitiment baby they would climbing on that like a fat boy on cake.

With any article you have to use your head. Is the Edwards story legit? Who knows. The truth will come out.

[AnnEsthesia]

Can you show me where anyone other then you and preservanation has posted a national enquirer story? (What was posted after this crap does not count.) There have been plenty of "Bush is an alien" and "Cheney is a robot" stories, but I do not recall them ever being cited.

[Osborn F. Enready]

National Enquirer is a gossip mag that sells based on cover story shock and awe.... rarely if ever do they have credible sources.....

[Leslie]

National Enquirer is a legitimate source with questionable credibility just like many other sensationalizin' publications.
Hell, I know folks who quote James Dobson and Focus on the Anus, I mean Family, as reliable sources. :madlaugh:

[Osborn F. Enready]

I agree Leslie... focus on the family is another jewel of BS.

[apdst]

NE is just as credible as any other news org. The reason they aren't taken seriously, is because of the silly shit they report on. No one gives a shit about which actress got a fat ass, or whose fucking who, or who got knocked up by who, except when it comes out that a former presidential candidate and senator turns up with a bastard kid. The, "Cheney is a robot", front pages are just attention getters. The articles will admit that the weird front page shit is just for kicks. Kinda like the cartoons in Hustler.

[AlanC]

I'm curious, are these emotional responses or ones based on the article I linked? Because so far, you all are basically saying the article is completely hogwash without having to address it.

[apdst]

Because so far, you all are basically saying the article is completely hogwash without having to address it.

That's chapter 9, in the Liberal Debating Hand Book, "Never, ever, debate the actual facts, unless they are squarely in your favor".

[Leslie]

I'm curious, are these emotional responses or ones based on the article I linked? Because so far, you all are basically saying the article is completely hogwash without having to address it.


I read it, summarized: folks judge material in light of distribution placement/grocery store checkout lane 'n not the content of glossy vs non glossy mags, blah ,blah, blah.

Kinda like the latest blind test done on a new pgm for computer users, they loved it, raved about it, and then were told surprise: it's VISTA.

It all falls in my so called genre of monkey see, monkey do mentality.

Okay, I was also in admin mode, bump the post. :madlaugh:

[micfranklin]

The Enquirer is a tabloid magazine first and foremost and is about as reliable as a jewel thief.

[AnnEsthesia]

A broken clock is right two times a day, but I doubt you would use it to tell time.

[Leslie]

A broken clock is right two times a day, but I doubt you would use it to tell time.

Now stop AnnE, there might be some folks here who would. :lmao:

[Buck Laser]

That's chapter 9, in the Liberal Debating Hand Book, "Never, ever, debate the actual facts, unless they are squarely in your favor".
Funny you should mention "facts" in conjunction with the National Enquirer, considering the convulsions conservatives have when someone mentions the NYTimes. I would almost trust something from say, Human Events, knowing that they have an admitted and strong political bias than I would from the Enquirer for the simple reason that the Enquirer pretends to be a news source.

Of course, this isn't exactly a one way street: I've seen various conservatives come dangerously close to apoplexy when someone mentions Daily Kos or the Huffington Post as a source. The plain fact is that none of us cares much for reading news or analysis that seems to refute our own views.

That's probably one of the reasons the "mainstream" media enjoy a wider following than the highly partisan media of either the left or the right. In the end though, clutching at some cockamamie story covered by a rag like the Enquirer strikes me as elementally stupid. Should it somehow be verified, I would grudgingly admit it, but it's so bloody unlikely that I'm willing to put up a $20 bet with anyone who actually thinks its horseshit is correct. If I lose, I'll make prompt payment. If I win, I'd expect the same from whoever is willing to take me up on it. Only one better, please.

Buck Hussein Laser

[Buck Laser]

Four hours later...no one, not even Alan, is confident enough in the reliability of the National Enquirer to take me up on what all you conservatives seem to think would be a sucker bet!:blah:

I think that tells me what I needed to know about how seriously you take this story. You don't at all, but you just want to stir some shit. I get it.

But just to reiterate the challenge: I'm willing to bet any conservative $20 that this crap about Edwards is pure and unadulterated bullshit. C'mon, guys--it should be easy money. I'll pay if you prove it, but I wonder if you guys are trustworthy enough to expect payment. Only one bet from one person, please.:lmao:

[AlanC]

Four hours later...no one, not even Alan, is confident enough in the reliability of the National Enquirer to take me up on what all you conservatives seem to think would be a sucker bet!:blah:

I think that tells me what I needed to know about how seriously you take this story. You don't at all, but you just want to stir some shit. I get it.

But just to reiterate the challenge: I'm willing to bet any conservative $20 that this crap about Edwards is pure and unadulterated bullshit. C'mon, guys--it should be easy money. I'll pay if you prove it, but I wonder if you guys are trustworthy enough to expect payment. Only one bet from one person, please.:lmao:

What the hell, its been a boring month. You're on. But the story has to be proven or disproven. Not just alleged or denied by the principles. Now which story is it that you are talking about. The Love child story from last year, or the meeting in the hotel last month? Or is it the two combined, or either one by itself? What do you consider winning or losing the bet?

[Buck Laser]

What the hell, its been a boring month. You're on. But the story has to be proven or disproven. Not just alleged or denied by the principles. Now which story is it that you are talking about. The Love child story from last year, or the meeting in the hotel last month? Or is it the two combined, or either one by itself? What do you consider winning or losing the bet?
I mean the "love child" story itself. I believe that if there were any REAL story there, the rest of the media would have been all over it like stink on shit. I contend that this whole thing is whole cloth fabrication; in which case Edwards would be a fool to give it any attention at all. Even agreeing to a DNA test would give right wing creeps ammunition they're definitely looking for.

Then there's the problem that it's logically impossible to prove a negative. What I want to bet is that no proof of the truth of the Enquirer story will ever be forthcoming. Or at least that nothing will come of it during the election cycle--i.e., before November 5, the day after the election. If proof appears by or before then, I'll owe you $20. If it doesn't, you'll owe me $20. How does that sound? Maybe we could make it gifts to our favorite non-political charities. Mine would be Habitat For Humanity.

[AlanC]

I mean the "love child" story itself. I believe that if there were any REAL story there, the rest of the media would have been all over it like stink on shit. I contend that this whole thing is whole cloth fabrication; in which case Edwards would be a fool to give it any attention at all. Even agreeing to a DNA test would give right wing creeps ammunition they're definitely looking for.

Then there's the problem that it's logically impossible to prove a negative. What I want to bet is that no proof of the truth of the Enquirer story will ever be forthcoming. Or at least that nothing will come of it during the election cycle--i.e., before November 5, the day after the election. If proof appears by or before then, I'll owe you $20. If it doesn't, you'll owe me $20. How does that sound? Maybe we could make it gifts to our favorite non-political charities. Mine would be Habitat For Humanity.

And here I thought you were serious. That is a sucker bet as you outline it. You know and I know that the only way to "prove" who is the father of that child is a DNA test. Well, that and Edwards actually admitting it. What are the odds of either of those situations happening?

Absent that, even if he is the father, he can continue to just pay everyone involved to deny it and nothing is accomplished or determined.

Even if it's shown and documented that, as they claim, he is paying her $15,000 a month, it won't prove the child is his. Unless he submits to the DNA test, he can just deny this all the way to his grave and it will never be proven to anyone's satisfaction one way or the other.

I was talking about the affair itself, which is far more likely to be proven one way or another. Don't you agree? Eventually Edwards will have to admit its true or the Enquirer will have to admit its made up. The Enquirer has put out too many facts that can be shown to be factual or not and that is what will ultimately bear out the story or not.

So what do you say, the same $20 on that basis? The story being proven one way or the other. The charity idea is fine too, I can live with that.

[Buck Laser]

I was talking about the affair itself, which is far more likely to be proven one way or another. Don't you agree? Eventually Edwards will have to admit its true or the Enquirer will have to admit its made up. The Enquirer has put out too many facts that can be shown to be factual or not and that is what will ultimately bear out the story or not.

So what do you say, the same $20 on that basis? The story being proven one way or the other. The charity idea is fine too, I can live with that.
Oh, so now the ground is shifting from the love child to the lover, huh? Slick move there, bubba. :grrrr:

I'd say that's certainly more likely: after all, McCain seems to have had his share of one night stands. I'd imagine that anyone who wields great power has innumerable opportuniities to get laid. It's just a perk of the job. The only past president in my memory that I can imagine not getting laid is Nixon.

Let me remind you that this thread started on the question of the veracity of the National Enquirer, which apparently began this story by alleging a "love child." I think it's ALL bullshit, love child or love affair or one night stand, but I guess I'm willing to take the bet on your terms. After all, given how common marital infidelity is among the powerful, the truly faithful ones must constitute a minority, so I won't feel too sad if Edwards actually did pork this bimbo.

Are you OK with the loser donating to the winner's choice of charity?

[apdst]

Sorry, Buck, but op-eds does not factual documentation make. Ultimately, Daily KOS, HuffPo, Common Dreams and Democracy Now are no more than op-eds.

[Buck Laser]

Sorry, Buck, but op-eds does not factual documentation make. Ultimately, Daily KOS, HuffPo, Common Dreams and Democracy Now are no more than op-eds.

So you trust the National Enquirer. Got it--and not surprised. :madlaugh:

[AnnEsthesia]

Edwards has admitted to the affair... but is stating that he ended it too early to be the father.

[apdst]

but is stating that he ended it too early to be the father.

So, he lied about part of it, already. A DNA test should give everyone a definitive answer. Simple.

[Buck Laser]

So, he lied about part of it, already. A DNA test should give everyone a definitive answer. Simple.

And you know this just HOW?

[AlanC]

Oh, so now the ground is shifting from the love child to the lover, huh? Slick move there, bubba. :grrrr:

I'd say that's certainly more likely: after all, McCain seems to have had his share of one night stands. I'd imagine that anyone who wields great power has innumerable opportuniities to get laid. It's just a perk of the job. The only past president in my memory that I can imagine not getting laid is Nixon.

Let me remind you that this thread started on the question of the veracity of the National Enquirer, which apparently began this story by alleging a "love child." I think it's ALL bullshit, love child or love affair or one night stand, but I guess I'm willing to take the bet on your terms. After all, given how common marital infidelity is among the powerful, the truly faithful ones must constitute a minority, so I won't feel too sad if Edwards actually did pork this bimbo.

Are you OK with the loser donating to the winner's choice of charity?

I like that idea alot. But you are off the hook if Ann is correct and he has already admitted to the affair.

[AnnEsthesia]

I am and he has.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/08/edwards-admits-sexual-aff_n_117780.html

[AlanC]

Edwards has admitted to the affair... but is stating that he ended it too early to be the father.


When was this? I'm not aware that he had admitted anything. If he did, I won't hold Buck to any bet on the subject.

[Wndrtch]

When was this? I'm not aware that he had admitted anything. If he did, I won't hold Buck to any bet on the subject.

I think it was announce just a bit ago.

[AlanC]

I think it was announce just a bit ago.

Aha. See what happens when you go and eat lunch.

[AnnEsthesia]

Psst... click the link.

[AlanC]

I found it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1

Well then, the bet is off Buck. I was unaware of this.

This kind of says it all.

When the National Enquirer first reported the alleged Edwards-Hunter affair last October 11, Edwards, his campaign staff and Hunter vociferously denounced the report.

"The story is false, it's completely untrue, it's ridiculous," Edwards told reporters then.

He repeated his denials just two weeks ago.

Edwards today admitted the National Enquirer was correct when it reported he had visited Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.

The former Senator said his wife had not known about the meeting.

So now the only question is, is he finally telling all the truth this time?

[Buck Laser]

I am and he has.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/08/edwards-admits-sexual-aff_n_117780.html
Oh, but Anne! Apdst has already told us that kind of medium is just opinion. We can't use THAT!

As to the bet with Alan, I'd be happy enough to hold up my end of the bet for a couple of reasons. The main one is that contrary to your silly assumption, Edwards apparently spoke to it on his own accord. I say that without actually having followed the link. But a bet is a bet. I hope your charity is one I can support happily, as I would Habitat. Let me know.

[apdst]

Just a quick question: How many often do we hear Libs crying about Fox News?

[Cobra]

He's on all the stations now. LOL feel sorry for his wife tho.

[apdst]

And you know this just HOW?

How do I know that a DNA test will give us all a definitive answer?

[Leslie]

Psst... click the link.


But, but, but it's a librul source. :lmao:

[Wndrtch]

He's on all the stations now. LOL feel sorry for his wife tho.

"Hey Edwards, maybe you should wait until AFTER your wife is dead, before you look for a new one!"

[AnnEsthesia]

apdst, I post fox news links from time to time, since some of you will only listen if it comes from there. Get over it. I do not, however, post National Enquirer links.

[AlanC]

Psst... click the link.


Aha, so that is what that was. :embarrased:
You expect me to read everything?

[AnnEsthesia]

Aha, so that is what that was. :embarrased:
You expect me to read everything?

You are a mod. So yes I do. Get cracking.

[Leslie]

"Hey Edwards, maybe you should wait until AFTER your wife is dead, before you look for a new one!"


Yeah, I hate that he's actin' like McCain. ;)

[AlanC]

Oh, but Anne! Apdst has already told us that kind of medium is just opinion. We can't use THAT!

As to the bet with Alan, I'd be happy enough to hold up my end of the bet for a couple of reasons. The main one is that contrary to your silly assumption, Edwards apparently spoke to it on his own accord. I say that without actually having followed the link. But a bet is a bet. I hope your charity is one I can support happily, as I would Habitat. Let me know.

I was going to use the same one. Habitat for Humanity is quite suitable for me too. Why don't we both do it then?

[AnnEsthesia]

Aw! How sweet! I love when two men come together in peace and love. I could just cry...

[Wndrtch]

Yeah, I hate that he's actin' like McCain. ;)

I thought Gingrich was the one with a dying wife and new mistress? McCain and HIS first wife are still friendly.

[Wndrtch]

Aw! How sweet! I love when two men come together in peace and love. I could just cry...

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/665/ghjc5.jpg

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[AlanC]

Aw! How sweet! I love when two men come together in peace and love. I could just cry...


Well there goes your reputation too! :madlaugh: Softy!

[AnnEsthesia]

Well there goes your reputation too! :madlaugh: Softy!

My reputation? Why would it affect me?

[brien]

So you trust the National Enquirer. Got it--and not surprised. :madlaugh:


I guess this time it was trust well placed because Edwards has announced it is true. Personally, I don't trust the NE as a primary source, but this time they have shown themselves to be reliable. Score one for them.

So we will wait for your retraction on this one, Buck.

[AnnEsthesia]

Sorry, can you link to where he has announced that he has a love child?

[AlanC]

My reputation? Why would it affect me?

Because I didn't know it was so easy to bring out your kinder, gentler side ;)

[AnnEsthesia]

Yes. I get all soft and mushy over two men being loving.

[AlanC]

Yes. I get all soft and mushy over two men being loving.


I wouldn't call it loving.... more like ameniable agreement. :thumbsup:

[AnnEsthesia]

Whatever name for it that works for you.

[Buck Laser]

I thought Gingrich was the one with a dying wife and new mistress? McCain and HIS first wife are still friendly.

Gingrich has done that more than once. But I do believe McCain has catted around a good bit, too.