Ah yes, the National Enquirer, that bastion of journalistic integrity.

They were right about Edwards...

...But not about the aliens, the half boy half warewolfs or the lady with two heads.

Some blogger once said:

The most common dismissal I've seen is that "it's just the Enquirer." After all, they're just a supermarket tabloid. They don't have any journalistic credibility.

I beg to differ.

I don't read the Enquirer, but I do know a little about their history. And to me, that gives them some credibility.

In 1981, they were sued for libel by Carol Burnett after they said she had been drunk in public. They lost that suit, and paid out a hefty sum. And they vowed that they would not make that mistake again.

Ever since then, the Enquirer has been exceptionally careful to not get caught in the wringer again. They double-check their sources, and make sure they have at least one person on the record making the allegation. And that caution has paid off.

The Enquirer -- probably in part because they don't subscribe to common journalistic ethical principles like "we don't pay sources" -- has nailed down quite a few major scoops over the year. They were all over the Monica Lewinski scandal, they broke a lot of the details. When OJ Simpson denied ever owning a pair of Bruno Magli shoes, the kind identified with the killer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, they dug up a photo of him wearing a pair. They were also first with the word that Simpson had written a book called "If I Did It." They dug up the illegitimate child Jesse Jackson had fathered on one of his staffers, and that he had used his organization's money to pay her off. And they were the first to allege Edwards' affair with Hunter, and to say that she was pregnant with his child.

As I said, I don't read the Enquirer. Not even at the supermarket line -- I usually have few enough items to hit the express lanes, and don't have the time standing there. I don't really care for them.

But that dislike is based not on their lack of accuracy, but their news judgment. They are, when it all boils down in the end, a tabloid. They focus on celebrities and sensationalism and lurid headlines, and I don't care for that.

But as far as accuracy goes, the Enquirer has a damned good record. After the Carol Burnett lawsuit, they've gotten very, very careful -- kind of like the ex-smoker railing against the evils of tobacco. In fact, I'd put their record for accuracy above the New York Times, CNN, and the major network news operations.

You want to ignore the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter love child story? Fine. Just come up with a better reason than "it's just the Enquirer." Yes, they're slimy. Yes, they're bottom-feeders. Yes, they're paparazzi. Yes, they're scum.

But they have earned a reputation for accuracy, and it's only the fools who dismiss their reports out of hand.

- link

Until it's verified by another source, I'm not going to believe a story out of that paper. There was an story on the CBS Sunday morning program about them and they all but admitted that they take minor bits of facts and sensationalize them to make a story out of it. I guess we wont' know for sure until the full article is released and someone else actually picks up the story. I'm not rushing to judgement.

Lee,

Here are some excerpts from the article. Try not to get too excited.

Another incredible allegation emerging from the family war is that Palin, a mother of five, had an affair with a former business associate of her fisherman husband, Todd.

"Todd discovered the affair and quickly dissolved his friendship and his business associations with the guy," charges an enemy. "Many people in Alaska are talking about the rumor and say Todd swept it under the rug."

and

The ugly family feud stems from a three-year battle between the 44-year-old governor and her former brother-in-law, state trooper Mike Wooten.

"Sarah has many enemies in her hometown - but a lot of them are in her own extended family," a source close to the Palin family told The Enquirer.

Family members loyal to Wooten are now waging a campaign to drag Palin's reputation through the mud.

Notice anything missing?

Ya know, I thought I put the quotes in correctly. Dang it.

The first sentence, the conjunctive "and" and the last question are mine. Everything else is the Enquirer.

Paul is right Lee, don't go orgasmic on us *grin* But that is a good post. I am watching the convention and hanging out here so I would have missed it. Thanks.

Yes Lee, you are dead on correct in your evaluation of the National Inquirer. And I share your view.

So I went to their site and read the articles as posted.

Ho.hum. Same old tired stuff retread from here and elsewhere except this time with anonymous "sources." Palin has a ton of haters in Alaska. She took on the old guard and kicked their arse. I am sure they will help the Inquirer all they can.

The only thing new I saw was the affair bit. I saw one small reference to it last week but nothing since. Given how affairs work, there are probably less than a handful of people who know if it is true or not. Several of the questions on a VP vetting deal has to do with affairs. Hope she didn't lie.

That said, the main page of the Inquirer did NOT mention the affair, but did talk about Bristol and troopergate.

I do know a few things about affairs. I won't publish why. Given how males are, it could be that the old business partner thought Palin's smile meant she wanted his baby. Men are stupid. From there it went downhill. Some women and Palin strikes me as the type, don't know how to turn male interest OFF unless they want it turned ON. Just speculating. Until the facts are published instead of allegations, who knows other than the players.

Of course to most tabloid readers, this is all new stuff. Those kind of folks don't typically spend their time on blogs or they wouldn't need to buy the Inquirer. So it will be news to them.

Lee, I am proud of you. At least you're getting away from linking MySpace excerpts. By the way, of real interest to me is that thing on Angelina and the twins article referenced in the upper left hand corner of that cover. You don't happen to also have anything on that do you.