Don't laugh! Because this is true. I apologize to my readers who weren't expecting this type of post from me. But on the Huffington Post Media page, blogger Emily Miller writes an interesting, thought-proving piece about how the "Pulitzer Prize Board has officially accepted The National Enquirers submissions for breaking the John Edwards scandal." To the casual observer, this may not be much. But this is a huge deal.
For years, the National Enquirer was universally disliked for their methods of obtaining information, and crafting articles. Celebrities and politicians particularly disliked their brand of journalism, as many of them graced the cover of the publication. They rarely got damaging info on people through simple research. No, they paid money to sources, and of course, this changes the game dramatically.
There is no doubt that this will certainly bring a degree of respect to the Enquirer from a whole new generation of bloggers and journalists. Not prestige, but respect for sure. The John Edwards affair was heart-breaking on so many levels, and the Enquirer broke the story, and gave it even more disturbing context than what had been previously known.
The Enquirer's surprising rise to mainstream credibility speaks volumes about the ongoing debate and discussion about the future of global journalism. No, this is not the most important story I could write about for this blog, but it will have ramifications about the sourcing of news and info going forward.