You decide.
If they did, would that mean they’d be considered mainstream serious journalism? < shudder >
They’ve been moving in that direction in recent years. And they did indeed beat everybody on the Edwards story.
Here are the Pulitzer categories. Does that justify a Pulitzer in, say, public service, breaking news reporting, or investigative reporting? I’m leaning toward no, but in the breaking news category maybe it deserves consideration.
Since the Edwards story involved nothing more than peeping in on the sex life of a private citizen, I see no probability of an award here.
There are many subscription websites online which provide the same service that the National Enquirer did, and with better content too.
Can and Will are two very different propositions.
And “can”, “will”, and “should” make three of them 
I think it would be great if they won! They broke a major story, and in my opinion that’s the kind of reporting that deserves it.
However, it seems like they are ineligible. They are considered a magazine and not a newspaper, plus they broke the story in 2007 and 2008, so they can’t get one this year.
Too bad. I’d love to see the snotty newspapers shown up by the N.E.!
Can the win a Pulitzer? Absolutely. They just need a category called “most absorbent cat box liner”.
That settles it, I think. :smack:
Private citizens who are running for president are generally considered more newsworthy, though. Also, the possible abandonment of a child does not fall within what I would consider one’s sex life, but I suppose others may disagree.
Isn’t there a Pulitzer prize for fiction?
Edwards was not a candidate for anything when the Enquirer broke the story.
I’m not aware of any child abandonment.
A federal grand jury is investigating whether any Edwards campaign funds were misspent on covering up the affair.
I’d say it’s a big story.
That wasn’t the story, though. The story was ZOMG, John Edwards is boning that chick ::fap fap fap::