How does the National Enquirer and other tabloids get away with so much crap?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The big safety valve for tabloids like the Enquirer is that they often avoid making a direct, factual assertion and rely on “sources say…” It doesn’t have to be true that Richard Gere got an abortion, it only has to be true that some one told them he did.

I also think that a great deal of what’s in those tabloids is true, or pretty close to it. They don’t just completely fabricate anything. They do either have a genuine source (a housekeeper, or limo driver, or studio PA) who told them they saw something, or sometimes the celebs feed them info themselves (Michael Jackson and Britney Spears are both reputed to have done this).

I remember once seeing Bijou Philips on Howard Stern amd she was saying “everything you see in the tabloids is true.”

Well maybe not everything, but I think the majority of it is. That’s probably another reason why celebs don’t try to sue.

[Walloon]

@billfish678

When the headline is along the lines of “Elvis Presely’s daughter having Bigfoot’s love child”, Enquiring minds really don’t really need a more in depth analysis to go :rolleyes:

The Enquirer doesn’t publish stories like that, and hasn’t for decades. Where have you been?

[Walloon]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The big safety valve for tabloids like the Enquirer is that they often avoid making a direct, factual assertion and rely on “sources say…” It doesn’t have to be true that Richard Gere got an abortion, it only has to be true that some one told them he did.

Actually, contrary to common belief, the “sources say” doesn’t get you off the hook. You can still be found to have libeled someone if you were negligent in determining the reliability of the source(s).

[Guinastasia]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

You mean like J. Edgar Hoover? You owe us all an apology for putting that in our heads.

Think that’s bad? Ever hear about why he didn’t serve in Vietnam? (NSFW)

[Leaffan]

You know, with “normal” newspapers having a rough go at it lately, it amazes me that these tabloid rags can still exist at all. People are paying money to read about untruths regarding people they don’t even know? WTF? I see these in the grocery store and it absolutely amazes me that people would buy and READ this shit. Get a fucking life people.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Exapno_Mapcase

There have been numerous articles and books about the tabloid industry that state that they settle virtually all claims out of court.

Note that the NYT just settled Vicki Iseman’s claim out of court.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The big safety valve for tabloids like the Enquirer is that they often avoid making a direct, factual assertion and rely on “sources say…”

Doesn’t every newspaper do this? Although in the mainstream press I guess it’s done more to protect the identity of sources.

@Leaffan

You know, with “normal” newspapers having a rough go at it lately, it amazes me that these tabloid rags can still exist at all.

IIRC, the Enquirer has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the US. It’s more than 2 1/2 times that of the NYT, for instance, although that doesn’t include web traffic.

[GoodOmens]

@Shagnasty

while Abraham Lincoln probably was a woman,

I’m gonna guess that’s a typo, because otherwise you need to call the Enquirer right away…they’d pay big money for a story like that.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Tom_Tildrum

IIRC, the Enquirer has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the US. It’s more than 2 1/2 times that of the NYT, for instance, although that doesn’t include web traffic.

Wrong in two ways. First, the tabloids function like magazines rather than newspapers. Their competition are the People and InStyle magazines that they’re found with at supermarket checkout aisles, not newspapers. Second, the Enquirer’s circulation is barely over 1 million and has been for years. It’s on its last legs. Of course, that’s true for almost all magazines. And newspapers.

[anson2995]

@Exapno_Mapcase

You’re making the assumption here that because so few libel suits have been successful that the tabloids must be correct.

Probably not. There have been numerous articles and books about the tabloid industry that state that they settle virtually all claims out of court. That gives them the facade of not losing, but the reality is that they are often wrong or over the line. They do get stories other papers don’t but that’s almost entirely because they are willing to pay for information and no mainstream news source in the U.S. does so. (I’m sure there have been a few exceptions and television “news” magazines have been run at times by the entertainment division so the rules are different. It’s still true virtually all the time.).

I know that the Enquirer has settled many cases before they went to trial. The same can be said of the NY Times. The tone of this thread is that the Enquirer is at a polar opposite from “reputable” papers when it comes to journalistic integrity. My assertion is that they’re much closer than people think. The major difference being the types of stories that they choose to cover, not the accuracy of their reporting.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@anson2995

My assertion is that they’re much closer than people think. The major difference being the types of stories that they choose to cover, not the accuracy of their reporting.

Fine. And my response is that this is a case of cynicism that approaches blindness. Being willing to pay for gossip, even accurate gossip, is not reporting. They are not playing in the same game. One is breaking par on a miniature golf course, the other is doing so on the PGA tour. There is no real comparison.

[Markxxx]

Part of it is that a lot of it can be true as well.

Roseanne Barr was having a fit over the Enquirer until she found out husband to be Tom Arnold was the one selling stories to them. (He said he did it as they paid him and he liked to have money equal to Roseanne. This was BEFORE she married him)

Also celebrities don’t want to air ALL their dirty laundry. Suppose I put a story saying “Actor John Smith did cocaine at a party last night.” It may be very easy for John Smith to prove he wasn’t at a party last night doing drugs.

BUT does he ever do drugs. Maybe he didn’t do drugs last night, but if he IS doing cocaine, that may come out if he sues the Enquirer. And if it got out he was a druggie that would hurt his career. So it’s best to say “Everything is a lie” and leave people guessing.

[anson2995]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Fine. And my response is that this is a case of cynicism that approaches blindness. Being willing to pay for gossip, even accurate gossip, is not reporting. They are not playing in the same game. One is breaking par on a miniature golf course, the other is doing so on the PGA tour.

Sure, their methods are completely different, but the OP was asking about the accuracy of their stories. Has the Enquirer been sued for libel more often than the NY Times? Have they had more instances of blatant fabrication? I think the answer is no on both counts.

I’ll join you all day long in criticizing the Enquirer’s practice of paying for stories, because it creates an incentive for those sources to embellish or make stuff up. But you can’t do that without acknowledging that papers like the Times often use sources with equally impure sources, such as the Vicki Iseman story or Judith Miller’s reporting on Iraq. The motivations may be different, but the results are the same.