The National Enquirer will enter John Edwards scandal coverage for a Pulitzer Prize: Well-deserved, but good luck getting past Sig Gissler!

The National Enquirer plans to enter its coverage of the John Edwards paternity scandal for a Pulitzer Prize.

"It's clear we should be a contender for this," executive editor and Tabloid Baby pal Barry Levine told the Washington Post today, after the former presidential candidate admitted what the newspaper had been reporting all along: that he fathered a child out of wedlock in an adulterous affair. "The National Enquirer, a supermarket tabloid, was able to publish this reporting."


Levine, and the Enquirer undoubtedly deserve the Pulitzer. They championed the story. They dedicated the resources and moved forward against the lies and brickbats hurled their way, while the lazy, "mainstream" media fed off their scraps and covered the story from a distance until it was safe to go in for the kill and start buying up the players for headlines and morning show interviews.

Ultimately, we predict the Enquirer won't get a Pulitzer, most likely because old Sig Gissler, the Pulitzer prize administrator, probably won't even let the nomination reach the Prize Board.

Readers of this site will recall the uproar when Gissler screwed TabloidBaby.com and its correspondent Elli Wohlgelernter out of a Pulitzer when he rejected our nominations for the groundbreaking coverage of the Israel Baseball League scandals out of hand-- citing some technical clause for refusing to let the Pulitzer boardmembers decide for themselves.

Mr. Pulitzer may have been a tabloid king, but the Pulitzers' Ivy League ivory tower does not admit tabloid journos.

After weeks of dithering while the story raged, The LA Times explains why it's finally deemed the John Edwards love child story worthy of mention

On today's Los Angeles Times Readers' Representative Journal try to find it blog:




Handling the John Edwards Story

Times readers and others since late July have sent notes by the dozens to the readers' representative office, asking if The Times was looking into a story published by the National Enquirer containing allegations about John Edwards. National Editor Scott Kraft sent an e-mail Thursday night to the Times' communications department and the readers' representative office, two departments that have fielded the questions about how this story was being handled. [Update: This posting earlier said that The Times hadn't published anything about the Enquirer reports; in fact, the Opinion LA blog did post an item on July 23 that was a roundup of coverage by others.] Kraft's note:

"We have decided to post, on Top of the Ticket, an item and link to a Charlotte Observer report, quoting Democratic supporters of Edwards on the record as saying that they think he needs to address the National Enquirer report if he hopes to speak at the convention.

"While we have stayed away from that Enquirer report, because we couldn't confirm it, this strikes us as a legitimate story -- that on-the-record Dems, including a former Edwards campaign manager, are criticizing Edwards' decision to stay mum on the topic and saying it might affect his credibility enough that he wouldn't get a speaking slot at the convention. (Those speaking slots haven't been decided yet, the party says.)"

Hey, LA Times! How about now?