Then, the National Enquirer broke the John Edwards affair when the rest of the media was sitting on it.
Now, I have to wonder how much is fiction and how much is just exaggerated.
I want the RINO's and Blue Dogs to so completely take over the Democrat Party that they will not be able to even nominate a nationwide candidate to the left of Ben Nelson or Mitt Romney for the next generation.
I literally trust the Enquirer more than the NYT. But to be frank, the enquirer only went up a couple of notches. It is the Times going down about 70 notches that did the trick.
The general rule of thumb - “scientific” stuff, conspiracies, revelations, history altering stories - purely entertaintment.
Gossip, personal stories, scandals are quite likely true or at least based on something real.
Still, you have to be careful to rely entirely on tabloid info.
If you saw Men In Black you’d know it’s all true!
The Globe is garbage...the Enquirer does on occasion break some things. Still, we here all know that Obama is phony...The BC he submitted is a hoax. We all know this.
Problem is it's the Globe, which is the sister publication of the Enquirer. The Enquirer actually has a really good record of the stories they covered from Bill/Monica, Edwards, Michael Jackson, but that's not the case with the Globe. They're the ones that have been touting stories about GW Bush drinking again, and his pending divorce with Laura----both lies. Let's just say I wish it had shown up in the NE instead.
“I used to laugh at the stuff I saw in supermarket tabloids.
Then, the National Enquirer broke the John Edwards affair when the rest of the media was sitting on it.”
I could never understand this reaction. The Enquirer got its just reputation because it truly does lie all the time. But that doesn’t mean it never told the truth. There are real scandals all the time, obviously, and no reason why the Enquirer wouldn’t report them despite their reality. If it’s tabloidy, it goes in, whether or not it’d also be appropriate for, say, the New York Times.
Credit is due for their “breaking” the story. But not too much credit, since the Enquirer wasn’t alone in knowing. Everyone else sat on it, for obvious reasons. By running it, the Enquirer was simply being the Enquirer. They have no standards. They will run with it if it’s salacious. Which is why people are surprised when they’re right. But they shouldn’t be, because, as I said, reality is often salacious.
Remember how much Matt Drudge was laugh at BEFORE he posted the Lewinsky affair that a so called “real” publication was sitting on, hmmm???