
I know that the
National Enquirer's John Edwards scoop is now old news, but I still wanted to blog about it since I looked at the ordeal from an academic perspective last summer and I was surprised with what I found.
For my final paper in my journalism ethics class, I chose to research whether or not the National Enquirer followed journalism ethics while investigating the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter affair story and why the tabloid broke a story that was mostly ignored by the mainstream media. We had briefly discussed the issue in class and I decided to take a closer look at it. At the time that I was writing the paper (Aug. 2009), Edwards had admitted that he had an affair with Hunter, but he denied her baby was his and he was being investigated by a grand jury to determine if he misused campaign funds.
Now we all know that many claims the Enquirer has made about Edwards have proven to be true, as the paper has maintained all along that Hunter's baby was fathered by Edwards. It's safe to say that Edwards' political career is ruined and some of the mainstream media has now admitted that they dropped the ball with this story.
So how did the National Enquirer
break such a scandalous story during a huge political election?
When I first began research for this story, I thought I would find some shady practices undertaken by the Enquirer, but I was surprised that the tab seemed to have broken the story through good old-fashioned making phone calls and pounding pavement investigative reporting.
I determined that the tabloid not only exercised news judgment, as it didn't name Hunter as Edwards' mistress in its first story even though it had identified her, but the paper also repeatedly reached out to the Edwards camp for comment.
The Enquirer does pay for tips, but the
editors openly admit this and say the paper only pays after a tip is confirmed, which they compare to the police rewarding news tips. The Edwards story began with an anonymous tip through the paper's tip line and an editorial decision was made to have an investigative team put on the story.
The tabloid stuck with the story for months; tracking down leads, conducting stakeouts and staging a (certainly questionable) "spy photo" camera to capture Edwards meeting Hunter and her baby at a hotel.
And while the argument might have been made that a story about a political candidate having an affair is not news, I disagree in this situation. As I wrote in my paper: "The mainstream media failed to investigate a matter of public interest when it didn’t look into the Enquirer’s allegations since Hunter had worked on Edwards’ campaign. Because of the Enquirer’s reporting work, Edwards is now the center of a federal investigation on whether he misused campaign funds to pay off his former mistress—a claim that most media outlets would love to make."
The Enquirer should by no means become an industry ethics role model or the authority on all news, but the Edwards story was not a fluke (Tiger Woods' affair broken by the Enquirer) and old fashioned reporting values and tactics have a place at the paper.
Interesting story on the issue in The New Republic in 2008 here.National Enquirer photo through Google Images