A Pulitzer Prize for the National Enquirer?

It's not the first time this has been suggested. But, on the morning that John Edwards completely vindicates their reporting, and makes the outlets too squeamish to follow it up look silly, we'd like to re-state the case.

The New York Times won the breaking news category last year for revealing Eliot Spitzer's infidelity. While that was doubtless fantastic reporting, the Enquirer had a much tougher task, and a much bigger fish to land. Their investigation was prompted by just a brief phone tip. Through nothing more than shoe leather and persistence their team exposed a major Presidential candidate as a cheat and a liar.

Emily Miller, at Politics Daily, explained why they beat every outlet to the story — they first reported it in October of 2007. And why the second part of their investigation, into inappropriate use of campaign funds, prompted a grand jury investigation (as robust a vindication of reporting standards as can be imagined):

The TV networks and many print outlets have dismantled or cut back their investigative teams, while the Enquirer continues to incur the expense of putting reporters on months-long stakeouts and paying them to literally knock on doors in search of sources.

Their reporting standards have been praised before too. If the Washington Post, or the New Orleans Times-Picayune or any paper really, had broken a story of this magnitude their Pulitzer nod would barely be in doubt. Edwards called the Enquirer, while trying to disparage its claims he was cheating and had fathered a child "tabloid trash." That stigma is the only reason its investigative reporters will not be considered.