the National enquier reported it earlier...now yall know NE has been right on affairs!
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/03/po...ry4413030.shtml
Full Version: McCain Camp Knocks Down Enquirer's Palin (Affair) Rumor
QUOTE (SherriChardonnay @ Sep 3 2008, 06:18 PM) 
the National enquier reported it earlier...now yall know NE has been right on affairs!
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/03/po...ry4413030.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/03/po...ry4413030.shtml
as we have discussed on this board, the national enquirer vets out their stories pretty efficiently. they don't want lawsuits. interestingly enough, there have been few legal awards against them.
this little bit of information is mind blowing - if it's true . with their track record, it's likely. wow!
Opps ... no butter on my popcorn please.
Very interesting.
Very interesting.
To me, this shows the pitiful level to which the MSM has dropped when the National Enquirer is regarded as (at the very least) an EQUAL in reporting the news.
How seriously irrelevant does the MSM have to get when we take the NE at its face value without skepticism?
As Randi says, the news has been cancelled, except at, maybe the Enquirer.
Sad state of affairs.
How seriously irrelevant does the MSM have to get when we take the NE at its face value without skepticism?
As Randi says, the news has been cancelled, except at, maybe the Enquirer.
Sad state of affairs.
QUOTE (adamquestor @ Sep 3 2008, 05:50 PM)
To me, this shows the pitiful level to which the MSM has dropped when the National Enquirer is regarded as (at the very least) an EQUAL in reporting the news.
How seriously irrelevant does the MSM have to get when we take the NE at its face value without skepticism?
As Randi says, the news has been cancelled, except at, maybe the Enquirer.
Sad state of affairs.
How seriously irrelevant does the MSM have to get when we take the NE at its face value without skepticism?
As Randi says, the news has been cancelled, except at, maybe the Enquirer.
Sad state of affairs.
DITTO! well said!
Sarah Palin has possibly had affairs?
I give a shit...except, again...for the hypocrisy involved.
Happily, a large number of wingnuts would give a big shit; many, if not most, of whom have had affairs themselves.
The hypocrites.
Go, Enquirer.
I give a shit...except, again...for the hypocrisy involved.
Happily, a large number of wingnuts would give a big shit; many, if not most, of whom have had affairs themselves.
The hypocrites.
Go, Enquirer.
QUOTE (drholly @ Sep 3 2008, 06:40 PM)
as we have discussed on this board, the national enquirer vets out their stories pretty efficiently.
Be careful with your praise.
BTW, the Enquirer wouldn't bite on the Larry Sinclair story (sheesh, they have standards?) but the Globe did.
Still going to keep defending them?
How do you like this cover?
Ok. So they were right about John Edwards - I admit I got surprised by that one. And let's face it, they did nail Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton, too. But: think all of the above stories are true?
They're mostly apolitical. They run stories about the affairs and scandals of politicians, real or not, for the same reasons they do about celebrities or other famous people. It sells papers.
They will do this regardless of party, and maybe more importantly, regardless in some cases - I still maintain - of credibility.
Oh yeah, about them never being sued. Happens all the time. Usually, they quickly settle out of court, to keep stories about them being sued, out of other papers. And they never have to reveal whether or not they smeared the person.
They're sued more often by celebrities than politicians, but that's because they run more stories about them.
Kate Hudson took them to court, and won libel damages and an apology.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/07/20/hudson-libel.html
Bobby Brown did divorce Whitney!
QUOTE (Seeker1 @ Sep 3 2008, 07:36 PM)
Be careful with your praise.
Oh yeah, about them never being sued. Happens all the time. Usually, they quickly settle out of court, to keep stories about them being sued, out of other papers. And they never have to reveal whether or not they smeared the person.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/07/20/hudson-libel.html
Oh yeah, about them never being sued. Happens all the time. Usually, they quickly settle out of court, to keep stories about them being sued, out of other papers. And they never have to reveal whether or not they smeared the person.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/07/20/hudson-libel.html
loved the pix!
one of the mucky-mucks at the ne was a member of a club i once used to belong to. he basically said that they get info and then go digging.
hell - i have a girlfriend with a nasty story about lieberman that was contacted by them. she decided it wasn't worth the aggravation. sad, but, what it was.
they investigate. witness the edwards debacle. i'm pretty sure the articles (if they don't have hard evidence) are written in a vague way that won't necessarily stand up in court. this bit about palin sounds like some gossip from wasilla. hope they have sources - this is a story that is sooooooo good. it would be a shame for it to go away.
QUOTE (Seeker1 @ Sep 3 2008, 07:36 PM)
Be careful with your praise.
BTW, the Enquirer wouldn't bite on the Larry Sinclair story (sheesh, they have standards?) but the Globe did.
Still going to keep defending them?
How do you like this cover?
Ok. So they were right about John Edwards - I admit I got surprised by that one. And let's face it, they did nail Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton, too. But: think all of the above stories are true?
They're mostly apolitical. They run stories about the affairs and scandals of politicians, real or not, for the same reasons they do about celebrities or other famous people. It sells papers.
They will do this regardless of party, and maybe more importantly, regardless in some cases - I still maintain - of credibility.
Oh yeah, about them never being sued. Happens all the time. Usually, they quickly settle out of court, to keep stories about them being sued, out of other papers. And they never have to reveal whether or not they smeared the person.
They're sued more often by celebrities than politicians, but that's because they run more stories about them.
Kate Hudson took them to court, and won libel damages and an apology.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/07/20/hudson-libel.html
BTW, the Enquirer wouldn't bite on the Larry Sinclair story (sheesh, they have standards?) but the Globe did.
Still going to keep defending them?
How do you like this cover?
Ok. So they were right about John Edwards - I admit I got surprised by that one. And let's face it, they did nail Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton, too. But: think all of the above stories are true?
They're mostly apolitical. They run stories about the affairs and scandals of politicians, real or not, for the same reasons they do about celebrities or other famous people. It sells papers.
They will do this regardless of party, and maybe more importantly, regardless in some cases - I still maintain - of credibility.
Oh yeah, about them never being sued. Happens all the time. Usually, they quickly settle out of court, to keep stories about them being sued, out of other papers. And they never have to reveal whether or not they smeared the person.
They're sued more often by celebrities than politicians, but that's because they run more stories about them.
Kate Hudson took them to court, and won libel damages and an apology.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/07/20/hudson-libel.html
lol....
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.