Boosh's fault?

NATIONAL ENQUIRER CLAIMS OBAMA CHEATING SCANDAL...

'Hotel security video could topple Obama's presidency'...

TerryRC wrote:So we are taking the Enquirer as a reputable news source? good:

The Enquirer may focus excessively on the exploits of show-biz figures such as Billy Bob Thornton, Lindsay Lohan's father, and Larry Hagman, but if past issues are a guide, the tabloid isn't making this stuff up. And say whatever ugly things you will about the modern National Enquirer, it hasn't staged the filming of an exploding pickup truck like NBC News; it hasn't been taken by a serial liar, as was the New York Times; and it's avoided running preposterous stories about the U.S. government using nerve gas in Vietnam, as CNN did. Had Jack Kelley attempted to place his fictions in the Enquirer instead of USA Today, I'm sure the editors would have found him out.

TerryRC wrote:As for getting nonsense from the Enquirer, do you have some kind of statistics that show the majority of Enquirer stories are untrue? I would be interested in seeing that because were I a betting man, I'd say the while most are likely blown out of proportion, the vast majority are true to some degree.

They lied about:

-kidnapping victim Elizabeth Smart
-Cameron Diaz
-the Palin/Hanson affair (at least I think)

I could go on, but it seems that your argument is that we should listen the the Enquirer because they only outright lie SOME of the time.

Excellent.

I agree that the Enquirer is probably more accurate than the NY Times, but that isn't saying much...

TerryRC wrote:For all the drivel liberals spout about double speak of the right, they are the biggest hypocrites in the world because they believe the continued lies of their leaders whereas those on the right will cast their swine out.

Like Reynolds and Hastert did with Foley? No wait, they covered up for him, first, then quietly asked for his resignation when the couldn't hide it anymore.

Democrats will throw their own under the bus IF THEY HAVE TO, just like republicans.

The stories the Enquirer publishes about celebrities carry the risk that the celebrity will sue them for libel. Carol Burnett once won a libel judgement against the Enquirer for falsely claiming that she had been seen drunk in public, purportedly with Henry Kissinger; the fact that both of her parents suffered from alcoholism made this a particularly sensitive issue to Ms. Burnett. (In order to defend against libel, an article needs to have a substantial basis in fact.) This loss led to a considerable tightening of reporting standards with regard to stories about actual people and events. Subsequent celebrity stories broken in the Enquirer have generally been proven true; for example, it was the Enquirer which uncovered in 2001 that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had an illegitimate child. Revelations about some of the relevant facts in the Monica Lewinsky affair by some of the mainstream press in areas that they would have in the past been unlikely to have breached were justified by the claim that the details were already public knowledge in that stories about them had already been circulated on the Internet and in the Enquirer; it is unlikely that either would have been cited as a justification only a few years earlier when the Internet was still in its infancy and the Enquirer still regarded as merely a salacious "gossip sheet".

source

TerryRC wrote:So the Palin stuff is true?

The Enquirer got the Edwards thing right. If you put a million monkeys at typewriters, there is a small chance they will crank out the works of William Shakespeare.

Most of the time, however, you get nonsense...

I agree that the Enquirer is probably more accurate than the NY Times, but that isn't saying much...