All newspapers get into trouble, from time to time. Usually, its because their reporters don’t do a good job of checking facts, correctly quoting sources, etc. But what about tabloids like TNI? I read once that they actually have a pretty good record-that (when challenged in court), they get acquitted more that regular papers. Of course, they print a lot of fantasy garbage (like Hitler alive at 120, alien landing sites in Antarctica, etc.), but this is to sell papers.
So is the NI up there with the NYT for veracity?
More truthful than the late, lamented Weekly World News, less truthful than, say, the New York Times.
Libel isn’t a criminal charge, so you can’t be “acquitted” of libel. But I’m skeptical of the claim they have a better record at libel defenses. They have definitely been sued successfully for printing false or erroneous stories. More here. They’ve broken some real stories, often in a scandalous or gossippy vein, and they have put different amounts of emphasis on “actual” journalism at different times.
No.
They may do more checking for the accuracy of stories than the NY Times, at least in terms of percentage of their publication. But they’re a smaller weekly publication, and they hide behind their sources a lot, reporting on what someone has said, and using weasely language to avoid direct accusations. They are protected by the 1st Amendment like any other journal, and since they report almost exclusively on public figures they avoid losing libel suits.
It is notable that they do not hide the news like some ‘respectable’ journals. They have been known to break lurid stories that other publications won’t touch until they or other tabloids report it first.
I doubt that the National Inquirer does anything of the sort. Cite?
What kind of “checking” are you thinking of?
They do lose libel suits.
That depends on what you consider to be news.
In large part because its news value is questionable. I have a feeling they have lower standards for sourcing than a lot of other publications, and they’re also more willing to pay their sources.
I can’t even find any evidence that a publication called “The National Inquirer” actually exists.
They’re very careful to check the sources of stories. They pay for celebrity dirt so they have to be sure they aren’t being taken by their sources.
I don’t know the numbers, but they have not lost many. Some of those losses have resulted in minimal payouts or been overturned on appeal. Decades back Carol Burnett sued them, won initially, and after appeals received nothing. But the story was widely reported by the mainstream media that she had successfully sured them. Success on paper maybe, but not financially, nor did it change any of their practices.
Rich presidential candidates taking money from poor people to fund a campaign doomed to failure because the candidate has fathered a child out of wedlock and tried to cover it up is news. I don’t remember if the Enquirer broke that particular story, but tabloids are often used by mainstream publications to justify reporting on such stories. The mainstream is less shy about such things now, but only because the tabloids became real competition for them.
Inquiring minds want to know. That’s what makes a story newsworthy. I’m not sure how to assess their standards. As I stated, they check the paid sources very closely because they’re very aware people will say anything for money. I doubt the NY Times is as careful when checking the statements of political operatives who will do anything to push their political agenda.
Acknowledging that they publish fewer stories than the Times does, in what way are they careful that other publications are not?
Right. Most publications avoid this issue by not paying their sources.
I linked to several.
What is that intended to prove?
That’s news, yes, and they did break that story. Most of their other stories are not that hard-hitting, and I don’t think any of this stuff is being covered up by the press.
No, it isn’t.
I find their announcements about which celebrities are dying fairly accurate, and the Enquirer is usually the first with the news about that. TRAGIC LAST DAYS!!!
I plan to test that theory next year (too late to do it this year), all my celebrity death pool picks in 2014 will be people that the Enquirer claims to be on their death bed.
I heard the editor of the Enquirer interviewed on a late-night radio show a few months back. Unless he’s a great actor, he truly believes that it is a newspaper and that they are the only ones brave enough to print scandals and the other stuff the deem newsworthy.
For example, the “news” that Dr. Phil and his wife are on the outs and that he’s a jerk off camera is way too hot for other sources to dare print. Ditto the fact that Joy Beharn and Barbara Walters are starting have difficulties working together.
National Enquirer is sensational garbage, but it is real news. It’s no worse than TMZ honestly.
Weekly World News and The Sun (US) are/were completely made up shit to appeal to conspiracy theorists.
The *Enquirer *doesn’t publish crazy fantasy pieces about ghosts or aliens.
They print slimy celebrity news for which they have a source. Sometimes, they have scooped the mainstream press (John Edwards’ child by his mistress, Jesse Jackson Sr. having a secret child, Rush Limbaugh addicted to painkillers).
Wikipedia has a decent writeup of suits they have lost, and other things they’ve gotten right.
I’m not sure about that. I’m sure I can find other examples.
That’s a better comparison. But some of this stuff is made up or sourced so thinly that more serious papers wouldn’t use it.
Hey, please don’t make me keep defending them. I’m not saying everything they report on is independently verified by other sources, and a lot of it is probably wrong and they don’t care that it’s wrong. But it’s “real news” in the sense that the stuff they are claiming is true might be true, and they probably got it from a (paid) source. Did they verify it at all or very well? No. And they don’t care. But to them, it’s news and they report it. Unlike The Sun or Weekly World News that just had authors paid to make up articles from whole cloth.
We’re not disagreeing about how they work or what they do, but plausible gossip isn’t “real news.”
Agent K in Men in Black said the supermarket tabloids are Earth’s only source of accurate news. Would you doubt him?
I’m pretty sure that it existed for a while, an imitator hanging on the coattails of the Enquirer.
But neither of them was ever the Weekly World News.
IIRC, back around '82 or '83 the Enquirer put out a parody issue (yes, a parody of themselves, if you can imagine such a thing…) and called it the National Inquirer.
A “close friend”, an “insider”, my go-to “source” (who “has not treated or evaluated a celebrity”) claims informal pictures taken and sent in serve to draw attention to the celeb du jour. The resulting story is somewhat embellished and the celeb’s past is drawn upon to fill it out. So, after a week of her boozing it up while on vacation, someone can take a picture of a bloated starlet, and there you have it: “Bloated Starlet pictured here at the airport, displaying a baby bump?? Baby joy for B.S. who has struggled tragically with infertility in the past! A “close friend” reports she and her SO are just over the moon and are expected to make an official announcement…” and so it goes. What can the tabloid be sued FOR? Nothin’ will be forthcoming, but that picture drew eyeballs, as will future pictures.