Is the National Enquirer Suicidal?

Flickr/<a href="">emutree</a>

Traditional print jockeys now have to tussle with a supermarket tabloid for a Pulitzer Prize. This week, the administrators of daily journalism’s biggest exercise in self-congratulation reversed themselves and agreed to consider the National Enquirer in two Pulitzer categories for its reporting of the John Edwards infidelity/paternity imbroglio. The news was hailed by nontraditional journalists at outlets like the Huffington Post and Gawker, who lobbied mercilessly on the Enquirer‘s behalf (and who have no shortage of schadenfreude when it comes to the suffering of print giants like the New York Times and Washington Post).

There’s no question that the gossipy Enquirerwhose current issue leads with a washed-up pop diva’s health problems (“WHITNEY DYING!”) and a celebrity chef’s romantic woes (“PAULA DEEN DIVORCE SHOCKER!”)ran with a story nobody else vetted when it exposed the dalliance between thenSen. Edwards and staffer Rielle Hunter. And the paper deserves some recognition for being, in many ways, a tastemaker and trendsetter in the new media landscape. But the Enquirer‘s allies overlook the fact that its most questionable reporting practice was precisely what got it the “scoop” over other organizationsand what ultimately could lead the tabloid to get squeezed out of its own business.

The biggest strike against the Enquirer is its practice of “checkbook journalism”: It pays sources for their “BOMBSHELL” exclusives. That seems to have been the case with the tabloid’s Edwards affair coverage, too. When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviewed Enquirer editor David Perel about the story in 2008, he asked point blank:

Blitzer: Did you pay any sources in connection with this particular story involving John Edwards?

Perel: Wolf, we pay for photographs. We pay for information when it’s accurate. We have no problem doing that. And in this story, you know, whether we did or we didn’t, I’m not going to say. It doesn’t matter. You can assume we did. The thing that counts is the story has proven to be true and there is more to come.

Take Perel’s (dissembling) words at face value and assume there was some payola involved in the Edwards coverage. Then, all of a sudden, the Enquirer‘s “scoop” doesn’t look quite like the mammoth journalistic coup. Not because payola taints a story, but because it means the outlets with the most money and wherewithal will get the next scoop. In other words: If major networks and papers adopt the Edwards reporting model, won’t the Enquirer have just scooped itself out of the scoop business?

Enquiring minds want to know.


Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn't fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2019 demands.

We Recommend


Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.


Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.