[ModelBreaker]

“Anyway the point is not that this is IN the Star, but that it WAS in the Star, and over a year later looks like absolute garbage as far as accuracy of prediction.”

The Star is one thing. The Enquirer is trashy but it does very careful research and sourcing. Back when I practiced law, I was hired by a celeb to sue them. They had their story solidly sourced and there was no chance of a successful suit.

I would say that, as between a fact stated in the Enquirer and a fact stated in the NYT or on CBS evening news, the fact stated in the Enquirer is more likely to be correct. Enquirer just dresses its facts up like trollops. NYT dresses them up like, well, John Kerry when he’s feeling very serious about himself.

[allmendream]

My point is that an anonymous source will (most likely) confirm that she is, in fact, NOT PREGNANT. Everything else in the story may or may not be true, but I am sure we will be able to count on the fact that if the National Enquirer says she is NOT pregnant, she is, in fact, not pregnant.

The only successful suing of the National Enquirer AFAIK was Carol Burnett. They went with one source who said she was drunk and acting crazy at a party. Crazy perhaps, but she doesn't drink, not a drop.

Johnny Carson was going to sue when their headline read “Carson to get Divorce”, but then decided to go ahead with the divorce as planned.

This is a big non-story, useful only in that the usual suspects will be trotting it out.