Edwards admits to affair

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I dont understand why we care about this anymore. I can see 1/2 a day coverage on it saying "edwards lied, sperm died" he could be the dad. After that the story should have been done with.

He is no longer a senator, no longer running for vice president or president. It should be covered on a show like Extra or Entertainment Tonight with the rest of the britney spears type stories if it is to be covered. At this point i consider it his own personal business between him, his family, and his mistress.

He's a Democrat and there are people that hate him. They MUST receive satisfaction.

[lew]

Well, after reading the last 3 or 4 pages, not a single NE hater posted a single story that was false.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He's a Democrat and there are people that hate him. They MUST receive satisfaction.

no, he's a lying hypocritical piece of shit ambulance chaser who bashed other people for having an affair and then said he was being 99% truthful when he disavowed his own.

[7960]

Originally Posted by lew

Well, after reading the last 3 or 4 pages, not a single NE hater posted a single story that was false.

and they won't, because their ignorance is keeping them from seeing the truth......... the enquirer posts celebrity news. they broke the story about edwards, they were the first to report about jesse jackson's lovebaby... they also write stories about celeb break-ups/make-ups but that doesn't mean they're any less credible than any other news source.




unless someone wants to post a story they got wrong ( *and didn't print a retraction for)

[lew]

I know this won't be hard for the liberals on this board (), but it looks like at the very least, NE is more credible than FOX News.


FOXNews.com - Bigfoot Trackers Say They've Got a Body - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He's a Democrat and there are people that hate him. They MUST receive satisfaction.

here, this is why I'm pissed.

Okay, I did a little research when I learned you wanted to talk about this. In January of 2001, a newspaper broke a story that Jesse Jackson had a baby with a woman he worked with out of wedlock. Jesse Jackson is an important figure. He's a minister. It's obviously a legitimate story. Did the New York Times break that story? No. Washington Post? No. Either of the Chicago newspapers where Jesse Jackson lives and works? No. The National Enquirer broke that story. And when the New York Times finally decided to run it, they put it on page 21 under a one-column headline.

Compare that to a story with two unnamed sources that think that maybe that I'm not sure, but I think that John McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist. That winds up on page one of the New York Times.

it's the double standard that pisses me off, NOT that he's a democrat.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

and they won't, because their ignorance is keeping them from seeing the truth......... the enquirer posts celebrity news. they broke the story about edwards, they were the first to report about jesse jackson's lovebaby... they also write stories about celeb break-ups/make-ups but that doesn't mean they're any less credible than any other news source.




unless someone wants to post a story they got wrong ( *and didn't print a retraction for)

It's not so much that they are wrong, it's that most of the stuff they publish is fluff like. OMG look at all that cellulite. that's not really something that can be proven wrong, but it's complete trash none the less. They have no journalistic integrity.

[lew]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It's not so much that they are wrong, it's that most of the stuff they publish is fluff like. OMG look at all that cellulite. that's not really something that can be proven wrong, but it's complete trash none the less. They have no journalistic integrity.

No one is arguing that most of their articles aren't celebrity 'news' that most people don't care about. However, that's not what you guys argued at first.



You were first arguing that they were "only right twice a day" and printed about bat-boy and all this other stupid shit, all of which is wrong.


Just admit it. You were wrong.

They print useless celebrity garbage, but it's not false, it's not made up, and it's not bat-boy.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It's not so much that they are wrong, it's that most of the stuff they publish is fluff like. OMG look at all that cellulite. that's not really something that can be proven wrong, but it's complete trash none the less. They have no journalistic integrity.

and they report on relationships and weddings and divorces and affairs and other things that can be proven right.

so pick a "big" story they got wrong. jesse jackson? had an affair. edwards? same. gary hart? yep, they got that one. limbaugh and drugs? guess who broke it.

can you name a story that they said happened that didn't?

[7960]

Originally Posted by lew

No one is arguing that most of their articles aren't celebrity 'news' that most people don't care about. However, that's not what you guys argued at first.



You were first arguing that they were "only right twice a day" and printed about bat-boy and all this other stupid shit, all of which is wrong.


Just admit it. You were wrong.

They print useless celebrity garbage, but it's not false, it's not made up, and it's not bat-boy.

he said

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

but he won't show us even one time they've been wrong.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

he said

but he won't show us even one time they've been wrong.

If you super market tabloid loving slack jawed yokels want to find examples where your beloved enquirer was wrong you can search for it and find plenty of examples. Here are a few to get you started.

Hudson wins retraction, damages in National Enquirer libel suit

J-Lo sues National Enquirer for libel in Europe | Entertainment | Reuters

the NE isn't legally considered a news paper in CA.
Retraction Law in California | Citizen Media Law Project

Condit v. National Enquirer

National Enquirer Sued for Defamation Over Kennedy “Love-Child” Story « JONATHAN TURLEY

National Enquirer Sued by Ashley Olsen




The fact is that the NE publishes false stories all the time. People have to SUE them to get them to publish retractions. Suing for libel is very expensive and very hard to win, so most of the time the NE gets away with publishing false stories. But whatever. If you want to think they are reliable, go ahead.

[WickedLou9]

BTW, did anyone see the colbert report when he talked about the NE story?
pretty funny
Reading the National Enquirer | The Colbert Report | Comedy Central

[motivez]

Like Lou pointed out and I've said earlier in the thread, it's that most of the stories they publish aren't things you'll traditionally prove true or false like you would with a legitimate source, ie: cnn, ny times, etc..

Stories about celebrities having an argument, saying this or that, being fat, yadda yadda.. it's gossip and nothing more. Of course they have some stuff that's provable, ie: movie star attends movie premier (gasp), and the other stories 7960 posted.. but that hardly highlights stellar journalism ability

Like I said, if you think they're such a credible source on celebrities, why don't you use them as a primary news source for election coverage? After all, Obama is the biggest celebrity in the world

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by motivez

Like Lou pointed out and I've said earlier in the thread, it's that most of the stories they publish aren't things you'll traditionally prove true or false like you would with a legitimate source, ie: cnn, ny times, etc..

Stories about celebrities having an argument, saying this or that, being fat, yadda yadda.. it's gossip and nothing more. Of course they have some stuff that's provable, ie: movie star attends movie premier (gasp), and the other stories 7960 posted.. but that hardly highlights stellar journalism ability

Like I said, if you think they're such a credible source on celebrities, why don't you use them as a primary news source for election coverage? After all, Obama is the biggest celebrity in the world

The other problem is that they don't really have alot of ( any? ) staff reporters. They pay people for stories.The better the story the better the payout. So there is alot of encouragement, shall we say, to find ( make up) sensational stories.
There is a famous example where someone sold them a story about Carol Burnett. This person told the NE that she was in some restaurant meeting with henry kissanger or something, and she was all drunk and rowdy and falling all over the place and such....

Well it turns out she was there with Kissanger, but nothing like the events that the author described ever took place. It was one of the few cases where a celebrity was able to sue the NE successfully for publishing false stories.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Hudson wins retraction, damages in National Enquirer libel suit

Wow, you found one! Too bad it's the UK Enquirer and wasn't printed in the US version.

And yes it matters.

J-Lo sues National Enquirer for libel in Europe | Entertainment | Reuters

they're being sued, big deal. what's the OUTCOME? I can't even find where the lawsuit was *actually* filed. I see tons of places where it says a lawsuit *will*be* filed but nothing on what happened.

the NE isn't legally considered a news paper in CA.

so? magazines and books aren't legally considered newspapers in CA either.

Condit v. National Enquirer

they're being sued, big deal. what's the OUTCOME?

the outcome was that they settled and we have no idea what the terms were. so was she actually libeled? not sure. was the story right and they made the decision to settle because it was cheaper? no idea.

an interesting thing though is that Gary Condit also sued Vanity Fair over a similar story. so would you put Vanity Fair in the same genre that you're putting NE?

National Enquirer Sued for Defamation Over Kennedy “Love-Child” Story « JONATHAN TURLEY

they're being sued, big deal. what's the OUTCOME?

National Enquirer Sued by Ashley Olsen

they're being sued, big deal. what's the OUTCOME?

The fact is that the NE publishes false stories all the time.

then show me one.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Like I said, if you think they're such a credible source on celebrities, why don't you use them as a primary news source for election coverage? After all, Obama is the biggest celebrity in the world

for the same reason I don't go to my TV guide for lawn care advice....it's not their forte. celebrities (and edwards is a celebrity) are.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

Wow, you found one! Too bad it's the UK Enquirer and wasn't printed in the US version.

And yes it matters.

they're being sued, big deal. what's the OUTCOME? I can't even find where the lawsuit was *actually* filed. I see tons of places where it says a lawsuit *will*be* filed but nothing on what happened.

so? magazines and books aren't legally considered newspapers in CA either.

they're being sued, big deal. what's the OUTCOME?

the outcome was that they settled and we have no idea what the terms were. so was she actually libeled? not sure. was the story right and they made the decision to settle because it was cheaper? no idea.

an interesting thing though is that Gary Condit also sued Vanity Fair over a similar story. so would you put Vanity Fair in the same genre that you're putting NE?

they're being sued, big deal. what's the OUTCOME?

they're being sued, big deal. what's the OUTCOME?




then show me one.

you can't be serious can you? You actually believe all of the stories in the NE are true? I mean you really believe that? There is nothing I can say, no arguement that I can give you, no facts that I can show you which would make you not stupid. I'm done with this. Enjoy reading your NE.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

you can't be serious can you? You actually believe all of the stories in the NE are true? I mean you really believe that? There is nothing I can say, no arguement that I can give you, no facts that I can show you which would make you not stupid. I'm done with this. Enjoy reading your NE.

I believe they're not true no more often than many other sources of news.

I can go back and find times the Globe and Times and Fox and USA Today were sued or accused of printing a false story. Apparently to you that makes all their other stories false.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

I believe they're not true no more often than many other sources of news.

I can go back and find times the Globe and Times and Fox and USA Today were sued or accused of printing a false story. Apparently to you that makes all their other stories false.

I really don't care. If you want to believe that the NE is a legitimate reliable news source, you can. I woudln't go admitting that in public though. People will laugh openly at you.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I really don't care.

it stings being wrong, doesn't it