Replies

The National Enquirer and similar publications are highly skilled and experienced in the art of avoiding successful suits over what they publish.

The primary method is to emphasize repeatedly in the article that what they are reporting is just someone else's account. Then everything they printed is technically true: Joe Schmoe really DID say he knew those things about the Smarts. And when Joe Schmoe is tracked down, he of course has no assets to speak of, and it would cost more to sue him than the plaintiff could ever hope to collect.

Usually there is also at least a speck of proveable truth to Joe Schmoe's story, which makes the plaintiff reluctant to sue, because the plaintiff would have to own up to the small speck during the course of the trial. Most plaintiffs would prefer to just make a public denial of the whole story, including the part that was true, and hope the public gives them the benefit of the doubt on account of the newspaper's reputation as an unreliable gossip rag.

They get nailed once every few years, but considering the amount of wildly speculative, unflattering stuff they print about a wide range of public figures, their techniques are pretty effective.

Yes, you are right. Anyway, I think that brand-new poster is pulling our collective leg. Dumb of me to bite. I wish with all the bells and whistles here, they would have put in an option for us to delete our own posts. Then I wouldn't have to sit here with egg on my face.

Well, I can't knock the Enquirer too much. After all, they did break the Jesse Jackson love child story, and it was true. Sometimes they do get it right.