My Two Cents on the National Enquirer/Edwards Debacle

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

A Classy Exit

Last night was Conan's final episode as host of The Tonight Show and he really went out with class. All week, he's bashed NBC and it's been absolutely hilarious, but he kept anti-NBC jokes to a minimum last night. He even offered a sincere and heartfelt thanks to the company he's been with for almost 20 years.

I really respect Conan's decision to leave his self-described "dream job" because he didn't think it was heading in a good direction. He felt that a time slot move would damage The Tonight Show franchise and he chose to leave his hosting gig than stick with a 12:05 A.M. start time. He said this was an extremely difficult decision for him, but it's better than clinging to something he didn't truly believe in and then having The Tonight Show decline and become something less than it was. So many great TV shows stay on air well past their prime and that slide into mediocrity takes away from what the shows used to be.

It's safe to say that Conan will be fine after all this and he'll end up with a great new gig in the fall. I'm excited to see where he'll be in the fall. As for the new-old Tonight Show with Jay Leno, I'm very curious to see what--if any--effect the recent debacle will have on Jay's show. It seems like a lot of Hollywood was on Team Coco and even though the blame seems to be on NBC for this, Jay's reputation has taken a hit, too. I wonder how this will change The Tonight Show's viewership, as it appears that Conan has a strong, young fan base that will follow him to another network.

We'll just have to wait until the fall to see what Conando has up his sleeve. Whatever happens, all eyes will be on him when he begins his new show.

My New Obsession

It's no secret that I have been watching more TV than usual lately. While I'm not proud of my TV-watching habits, much of my time in front of the tube for the last few weeks has been focused on one show: Alias.

I never watched the show when it was actually on the air (2001-2006), but through the magic of the free DVD rentals at the public library I have zipped through Season 1 and I'm now on Season 2.

Jennifer Garner is a butt-kicking double agent on a mission to take down the bad guys. Along the way, she travels the world, wears ridiculous undercover get-ups and falls for her hottie CIA colleague (Michael Vartan).

I've always been a fan of Jennifer Garner and now I like her even more. The show is fast-paced, action-filled, a little campy and very enjoyable. And I've already made sure that my library network has all five seasons on DVD. (They do-- yay for free library rentals!)

Alias image from Amazon.com

Thoughts on Fall TV

With fall comes cooler weather, falling leaves and the return of new TV. Yes, I know new sitcoms are not as poetic as changes in the weather, but I think we can all admit that fall TV is a welcome change after three months of re-runs.

Along with my returning favorites 30 Rock, The Office, How I Met Your Mother and One Tree Hill, I'm tuning into a few brand new shows. Well, so far I'm actually a fan of just one new show: Glee. It's smart, funny and has entertaining musical numbers in it-- what's not to love?

Speaking of new shows, I've noticed an onslaught of new medical shows since ER went off the air. NBC alone has two: Mercy and Trauma. Then there's HawthoRNe, Nurse Jackie and Royal Pains, which all started this summer. Did all the end of ER create a huge gap in the universe that needs to be filled with a half-dozen hospital dramas? It's a bit odd to me...

Something TV-related that also bugs me is the number of racy shows that are on at 8 p.m. I saw part of 90210 the other night and couldn't believe that crap is on so early. The TV rating doesn't matter when super-sexy shows are on right after the sun goes down! (Ok, that's a slight exaggeration, but young kids aren't all going to bed at 7:30-- they're staying up to watch trashy TV.)

The CW is a big violator of this in my opinion. The network has switched Gossip Girl to 9 for this season, which is a much more appropriate time for a show about boozing, sexified teenagers. (Although I am a little annoyed that this now means my favorite soapy show, One Tree Hill, will now be on 8, but it's actually a tamer show than Gossip Girl.)

That's my prude rant for the night. Needless to say, my kids won't be able to watch TV until they're 16. Kidding! (Sort of...)

Flickr image from mashpriborintorg

Zoo-nalysis

If you're not up to date on the world of Zoo drama in Mass, here is a brief update to fill you in:

Last week, John Linehan, president of Zoo New England, said that the group's two Zoos, Franklin Park Zoo and Stone Zoo, would be shut down if their funding was not restored by Gov. Deval Patrick and that 20 percent of the animals would have to be euthanized since they would be difficult to find homes for.

Using my own (limited) Zoo experience as background, I tend to think that Linehan made the comments on euthanizing the animals to gain publicity for the Zoo's cause. His statements gained huge media attention for the Zoo, though Patrick accused him of scare tactics and other national zoo officials said few animals are killed in response to budget cuts.

Nevertheless, the statements got Zoo supporters up in arms and have some Mass lawmakers pledging support to the Zoo, so I'm thinking this was Linehan's aim all along.

If the Zoo was really going to have to put animals down, they probably wouldn't publicize it immediately since it is not positive press (unless you can point the blame elsewhere) and because animal rights activists can be extremely passionate and vigilant (more so than some other cause activists, I think).

So this may have been a brilliant PR move by Zoo New England, but I doubt if our furry friends at the Zoo were ever going to meet the pearly gates because of Patrick's budget cuts.


Photo is of my favorite National Zoo animals-- Gorillas! (Not my best work, but I do love those guys.)