I have an inquiring mind, so this is what I want to know. Why is the National Enquirer being considered for The Pulitzer Prize? In fact, they are now on the short list for this most prestigious journalistic award. You heard me right, they could win. I saw it on The View this morning, and here are two pictures I snapped. Their guest was the editor-in-chief of the Enquirer, Barney Levine. Here he is shaking hands with Barbara Walters. She informed him that his publication had written a scandalously untrue story about her, and she scolded him for it. She then asked why on earth The Enquirer should be considered along with serious journalists for this coveted award. The reason is this: it is for being the first to break the Tiger Woods and John Edwards scandals. But their methods are questionable. You see, The Enquirer practices what is called "checkbook journalism", meaning that they pay their sources for stories. Here is what Mr. Levine said: they take on stories that are so controversial that the regular media run from them, so they are true mavericks, bravely going where the others won't! They also use lie detectors, the very same ones that the F.B.I uses! Who knew? While it's true that the Enquirer has uncovered many true scandals, they have also told many outright lies. And that's where it gets tricky. Someone once told me why their lies were so convincing. They always mixed in some truth. That way you can't separate the truth from the lies. So shouldn't character and journalistic ethics be considered in bestowing this award? Apparently the Pulitzer Prize committee don't really care about the many untruths if the truths are good enough.
"Do not spread false reports. do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness."
"Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body." Exodus 23:1, Eph. 4:25