The National Enquirer is a rag. It’s a gossipy, supermarket tabloid that trades in innuendo and exaggeration (if not outright fabrication). The National Enquirer is not a “news” source by any stretch of the imagination.
Except that it is.
In fact, The Enquirer predates by decades the gossip and entertainment sites we see in abundance right now online. E!, Perez Hilton, TMZ: these all owe their nascence to The Enquirer, the Rodney Dangerfield of gossip.
I’m not going to defend The National Enquirer as being anything more than it is. But when it breaks a news story, as it did with the John Edwards paternity scandal, it deserves to be recognized. The Pulitzer Prize committee feels otherwise, sticking to some of its absurdly outdated rules to eliminate The Enquirer on a technicality. It’s true – The Enquirer did run its original story in 2007, and did more reporting on the affair in 2008. So, let’s give the committee the benefit of the doubt that its chief concern was annual deadlines and not the reputation of The Enquirer.
Somehow, I think if the Washington Post had broken this story on the exact same timeline, it would be up for an award. The Pulitzer Prize people would find a way. But let’s put that aside.
Is The Enquirer dismissed from contention because, as the committee interprets the rules, its “original” platform is that of a weekly magazine. Yes – it calls itself a “magazine,” but so what? Isn’t the quality of the information far more important that the technicality of what the news medium calls itself?
In 2008, the Pulitzer committee expanded its eligibility rules to include web-only content from some news organizations:
“The Pulitzer Prizes in journalism, which honor the work of American newspapers appearing in print, have been expanded to include many text-based newspapers and news organizations that publish only on the Internet, the Pulitzer Prize Board announced today. The Board also has decided to allow entries made up entirely of online content to be submitted in all 14 Pulitzer journalism categories.”
That the committee waited until 2008 to come up with this rule change is silly enough. Think of how much Web-based reporting had been done by then – some 15 or so years after the modern adoption of the Web.
There will come a time when a non-traditional news outlet (or a TV station, for crying out loud) will do Pulitzer-worthy work. Is it really in the Pulitzer’s best interest to stick with its 1917 “newspaper only” rules? The Pulitzers were established in the early 20th century, with the first awards given in 1917. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that Joseph Pulitzer would have been cool with new reporting technologies? It’s logical to guess that Pulizer probably wasn’t thinking “OK – let’s honor newspaper writing. But do not, by God, do not salute fine reporting that comes out on things I can’t even imagine right now. What’s most important is the ink!”
Come on.
I’m not going to debate whether the Edwards story is Pulitzer-worthy stuff. (I don’t think it is.) But I am concerned that the continued snobbery of the Pulitzer committee will stop great reporting from the recognition it deserves. Yes, broadcast has the Murrow Awards. But we all know the cache that comes from “winning a Pulitzer.” It’s time for the committee to interpret Pulitzer’s true intent – to honor great news regardless of where it comes from.