8
   

pulitzer for national enquirer?

 
 
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 02:32 pm
The BIG secret is out of the bag as mainstream media trumpets the historic news that the NATIONAL ENQUIRER has been accepted into the Pulitzer Prize competition for its exhaustive investigation of the John Edwards Conspiracy and Cover-Up.

The scoop was broken by Emily Miller at Huffington Post as rumors of our acceptance into the competition by the prestigious journalism committee ignited the blogosphere.

"The Pulitzer Prize Board has officially accepted The National Enquirer's submissions for breaking the John Edwards scandal, according to sources close to the Board. In a historic move, the Pulitzer Board conceded that the self-proclaimed tabloid is qualified to compete with mainstream news outlets for journalism's most prestigious prize.

"The Enquirer is in the running for the Pulitzer in two categories: "Investigative Reporting" and "National News Reporting" for The National Enquirer staff," Ms. Miller announced exclusively at HuffPo.

Quickly The New York Times - for many THE Paper of record - made it even more official with their elegant headline: "Enquirer Is Eligible for Pulitzer". Writer Richard Perez-Pena analyzed the Pulitzer committee's turn-around in accepting the ENQUIRER entry after initially dismissing the very notion.

The Times reported: Sig Gissler, administrator of the prizes, says he and his colleagues never publicly discuss the eligibility of any specific publication. "We apply our criteria, and if publications meet them, we allow them to participate."

But with a grassroots effort steamrolling the viral landscape, Gawker.com analyzed the situation point by point in their historic article: "There's NO Good Reason the National Enquirer Shouldn't Win a Pulitzer Prize"

And MediaBistro even has a poll (yes, you can vote in it) on whether or not the Pulitzer Committee should award The ENQUIRER investigation into John Edwards' alleged abuse of campaign funds to fund a conspiracy of silence:

Ms. Miller concluded in her Huffington Post exclusive: "The massive grassroots campaign by the public to push the Pulitzer Board to recognize the national importance of The Enquirer's reporting of John Edwards shows the best of Americans' core values - hard work, fairness and equality for all - even for tabloids."


All because they caught the guy cheating on his wife? I never let cheating affect my opinion of Edwards. I never wanted him for national office in the first place. Maybe I should get the award. - edgarblythe


 
NickFun
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 02:34 pm
I think the Enquirer should have won the prize for breaking the news about Britney Spears weight gain before everyone else. Or for showing us what Jennifer Aniston looks like on the beach.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 02:37 pm
@NickFun,
Or perhaps they should have been considered for the countless vagina based photographs of many a young blond actress exiting their cars wearing very very very short skirts with no underwear.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 02:48 pm
The press have a long and honorable history of being yellow dog scumbags in this country--truly honest and trustworthy newspapers are so few in number as to be the exceptions which prove the rule. In fact, that's the way people liked it. It is a rather recent innovation, from the late 20th century, to believe that newspapers should attempt to tell us the truth, as opposed to screaming at us the shibboleths we wish to hear.

Old Joe Pulitzer himself was so scurrilous, that when he offered Columbia University money to start the nation's first school of journalism, they turned him down at first, because they would have been embarrassed to be associated with him. (Eventually, as one could expect, the lure of filthy lucre overcame scruple, and they took the money and ran.) Joe was responsible, more than any other single individual (including Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. and Henry Cabot Lodge) for starting the Spanish-American war.

So i say, hurray for the Pulitzer prize committee. Old Joe, were he alive today, would be gratified.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 03:44 pm
@Setanta,
youre starting to sound like spendi. ANybody tell you? Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 04:44 pm
I can't imagine any reason which would lead you to believe that i care what your opinion is on such a subject or on any subject except perhaps for geology or the life sciences.
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 05:15 pm
I rank National Enqirer right down there with Time and Newsweek.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 05:20 pm
it's about time the tabloids got the respect they deserve, without them we'd never have known about batboy

http://eatdrinkandbemarysue.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/batboy.jpg
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 05:22 pm
@Setanta,
I'ze just statin a fact Jack . If you caint handle it without poppin a bolt, Im here to sign the commitment papers.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 05:28 pm
I remain slack-jawed.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 05:31 pm
@farmerman,
It's is typical of your recent puerile comments about me that you attempt to suggest that i'm angry. You're not that important. You mistake contempt for anger. And your opinions do not qualify as fact, for however much you are impressed by the excellence of your own opinions.
farmerman
 
  6  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 07:41 am
@Setanta,
Set goes to the psychiatrist who asks him"So what is youre trouble set?"
"I TOLD YOU I CANT GET ALONG WITH THESE INFERIOR ASSHOLES< YOU IDIOT!!"

Disussing almost anything with set is predicated on the fact that set must always be correct or else he turns postal on you at the drop of a hat. Also he can never be the point of any poking fun when hes the point.

Sets unable to see himself as others do and hes in a state of self denial about his own clinical anger management problems.The best way to see this in action is to criticize him a bit and then watch him go into tirades (sorta like this one of mine) claiming how hes NOT angry and is only amused at the (blah blah blah congenital stupidity of the poster who criticized him)

If you wanna "use" me for things geological, Ill submit a consulting bill for each encounter.Perhaps I was operating under the false assumption that this forum is for mutual information delivered with a reasonable expectation for civility. I dont believe we have "sacred cave bears" who operate at levels above those requiring this simple civility.

I keep forgetting that set is to be worshipped and not even be included in the daily humor of the board herein. He demands fealty, not collegiality. (I dont recognize any sacred cows herein, evrybody is open game and if set cant take simple ribbing in the AMs, he better just join the WWE where evrybody is trying to take your " Im a Really Big Deal on the Internet " belt).

Usually when Ive engaged with set at whatever level, as long as you agree with him, alls well. Just go off script a teeny bit and suggest that hes wrong (as per an encounter here several years ago where I tried to explain the importance of the Trans-Mississippean Campaign of the US CIvil War), set goes ballistic and uses only the weapons of ridicule and "nyah-nyahism" (talk about puerile) when I suggested that the War didnt end with the surrender of Joseph Johnson. I quickly learned that set, an a very few others, dont really engage in dialogue, they engage in verbal battery to try to make their points. SO every few moths I test the waters by a few attempts at humor.
Apparently yesterday he was not fully out of hibernation torpor and hasnt flushed the "humours" yet. SO, I guess I am required to apologize to Himself for forgetting that He does not have a sense of humor that he is aware of.

Mea fuckin culpa.






0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 07:59 am
Once again, you use the puerile tactic of asserting that anyone who does not appreciate your childish taunts is angry--an attempt to suggest that you are calm and rational, and the person you slammed is emotional and irrational. That's nonsense, as i have pointed out, because my reaction to you is one of contempt.

In expressing an opinion, such as that i write like the English drunkard you mentioned, there is no question of right or wrong. Nor is there any question that i would be likely to agree with what is offered as humor on your part. It appears that your version of humor is simply gross insult, offered for no particular reason. Referring to things like "mick history month" is another example of what you apparently consider to be humor. You've done quite a lot of that lately.

You're very much mistaken to continue to claim that what is in fact my contempt for you is anger. My estimation of your character is lowered each time you indulge in what you refer to as humor, at my expense and when i've offered you no insult, and my contempt for you grows. But this is not a matter of right and wrong (you did not here challenge the validity of my remarks about Joseph Pulitzer, you just offered a middle school style of insulting taunt), and i've just pointed out that you're being nasty.

I don't know why you have decided to attempt to make me a whipping boy, nor why you think that such unwarranted and unprovoked insults can be characterized as humor. I don't care what the answer to such essentially meaningless questions would be either. I just know that what little respect i have for you as someone whom i might once have considered a friend is rapidly dissolving. I'm sure that is not a thought which distresses you in the least.
Joe Nation
 
  6  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 07:59 am
Tell us something we don't know.

Joe( I enjoy the history entries, I ignore the pissing.)Nation
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 08:05 am
@Joe Nation,
I'm sure it's easy to ignore the pissing, when you're not the one that clown is attempting to piss upon. I didn't come into this thread and offer gross and childish insults to anyone. If you want to stand alongside the clown from rural Pennsylvania while he flings cow flops at me, help yourself. It's not like there's very much respect for me to lose in your example.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 08:46 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
I just know that what little respect i have for you as someone whom i might once have considered a friend is rapidly dissolving. I'm sure that is not a thought which distresses you in the least.
Im really not gonna lose much sleep over that . After Ive seen your recent attacks at others for absolutely no reason, I re-evaluated how you use "dissing" as a debate tool.

Im sure I will take into cosnideration your entire package view on "humor" (Note to self, set is totally un equipped to handle anything outside the bounds of PC conversation).

My use of "Mick history mnonth" will probably draw a huuuge explanation from you about how you can show conclusively that "Mick" is a toatl racial slur and how offended you are at its use.I await your attempt to educate me about racial civility.

I guess Im only guilty of not knowing how to deal with you as an individual. Somedays you appear human and others youre quite a head case.
To state about considering me a "friend" is ludicrous as Ive been on the recieving end of your preemptive BS attacks at which time you take every opportunity to remind me (and others ) about your contempt you have for me (and others). Friends treat other friends as part of a package and I dont have to walk on eggshells with any of my friends, . Our definitions of "friends" are worlds apart sir. I sort of decide where I stood with you quite early and I assumed the most I could hope for was mutual interest in several subjects (but only based upon your rules). I could live with that but when you constantly use words like "contempt" to describe interactions that I tried to enter upon with the most respectful of intentions. Well sir, that just deeply tires me and I dont have life length enough to work on what you need to ahve as a daily dose of fealty to keep you happy.

My quip back at you on the Penut butter thread was a lame attempt at humor to get a rise about your disdain for GW Carver. I was surprised at how your tone went from collegial to reproachful at one post. My point is that youre waay too touchy for me to ever consider you a friend. I dont know if this is your board persona or this is Set in real life. If this is indeed set as we see him, Id rather hang around with spendi cause I know that his tongue is in his cheek at all times and sooner or later wed be comparing DAwkins to Le Mettrie and wed have a great ole time. I think with you Id be afraid that youd be going postal if I were to even question something you said. Im always questioning my friends , even when they make some goofy choice at a restaurant .

You take yourself waaay to seriously old girl and I dont, thats a major difference tween us. I suppose these words will merely enable you to lay more pipe in your "contempt" of me. I suppose now Im in a small (but no doubt growing) bunch of A2Kers who dont kiss your ass.

PS youre still all full of **** about the "Trans Mississippi Campaigns".
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 09:01 am
I don't ask anyone to kiss my ass, and a comment like that seems to me to be indicative of some obsession of yours, which it now appears goes back years to a comment i made which pissed you off. I suspect that i simply observed that to veterans of the Federal armies in 1865, the surrender of Joe Johnston at Durham on April 29th represented the end of the war. I'm not going to bother to look it up, because it's not important--except perhaps to you. If that were the case, your gripe would be with the GAR, not with me.

In the peanut butter thread, i wasn't "dissing" George Washington Carver, i was just making a silly remark. That's all it was ever about--i have no idea why it set you off, and don't really care. That's why i continued to say that i blame George Washington Carver--because it was just a silly statement, and i had no interest in getting in a pissing contest with you about the man.

As for "mick," yeah that's offensive to me. And i don't recall that i've ever gone out of my way to offer you offense based upon your ancestry, so i resent that kind of thing. But once again, my response is not anger, it's contempt for you for being so petty.

But at least i've now got a good notion of what motivates you. It appears that you've been cherishing a grudge for years because i had the temerity to disagree with you. It seems that you're involved in a huge case of projection here.

My apologies to EB for this trashing of his thread. I don't, however, consider that i can be held responsible for FM's obsessive campaign to pick fights with me, based on a grudge he's apparently been carting around for years about a trivial matter.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 09:35 am
The thread is going nowhere anyhow -
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 09:38 am
An entertaining topic, nonetheless, EB. The comedic possibilities are enormous.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  2  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 10:02 am
It would be a much less entertaining thread if Setanta were not such an overly sensitive poopity-pants. Come on, Farmerman, give him some more ammo...I enjoy this stuff.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
  1. Forums
  2. » pulitzer for national enquirer?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/14/2020 at 10:19:15