Emily Miller‘s new gig at the Washington Times has her asking if the National Enquirer was snubbed by snobs. I wonder if a Pulitzer would have gone their way if they uncovered a Republican Presidential candidate whoring around while his Wife suffered from Cancer.
Miller is always a good read:
When the 2010 Pulitzer Prizes were announced Monday, the outlet most deserving of the prestigious journalism award was glaringly absent from the list: The National Enquirer.
The New York Times and The Washington Post took half of the prizes, which is not surprising, considering that much of the Pulitzer jury came from these publications. Their annual prize has become more of a self-indulgent round robin than a reward to the most deserving journalist.
The Enquirer’s investigation of former Sen. John Edwards single-handedly ended his run for the White House and led to a federal grand jury probe. If the Times or the Post had broken the same stories about Mr. Edwards, the Pulitzer would have been a slam dunk. A handful of strong voices in these same outlets even admitted that they failed the public by not following up on the Edwards story. Still, in the end, the media elite circled the wagons to exclude the scrappy, self-proclaimed supermarket tabloid.
In early January, I pointed out that the Enquirer deserved the honor purely on the merits of its reporting and the ensuing criminal investigation. Consider the paper’s 2009 scoops: that a grand jury was investigating Mr. Edwards’ misuse of campaign funds; the DNA test proving paternity of his mistress Rielle Hunter’s child; wife Elizabeth Edwards filing for legal separation; and Miss Hunter’s legal documents preparing to sue Mr. Edwards for child support.
Read the rest of the story at MILLER: National Enquirer snubbed by snobs – Washington Times.