Succumb to pressure of crises, Bush hittin' the bottles agains

wnes · Sep 23, 2005

codell said:

I think one things that both republicans and democrats can agree with is that the National Equirer has ZERO credibility on anything they report.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much credibility a blank statement like the one above has in itself.

From wikipedia:

The National Enquirer (also commonly known as The Enquirer) is a national American supermarket tabloid. It is often regarded, not always accurately, as being sensationalist and carrying many esoteric stories. Articles usually center around reports about celebrities. The Enquirer is descended from a former New York tabloid, the New York Enquirer. Since 1971 it has been based in Lantana, Florida.

Despite the sensationalistic perception, the Enquirer is also well-regarded for its very thorough research; their stories are often proven correct in many of their facts. The stories the Enquirer publishes about celebrities carry the risk that the celebrity will sue them for libel. In 1981, Carol Burnett 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 Burnett (in order to be guilty of libel, a publication must be shown to have disseminated facts that were false and knowingly done so, or with reckless reporting).

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 that uncovered in 2001 that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had an illegitimate child. Details of the Monica Lewinsky affair would normally have been untouched by the mainstream press, had the details not been already made public knowledge by the Enquirer.

The former longtime chief editor Iain Calder has written a book explaining the claim that the Enquirer was forced by this reality to work very hard to check their facts and their sources well. The Enquirer and its parent company, American Media, were among the subjects of the 2001 anthrax attacks.
Click to expand...

Saint Louis · Sep 23, 2005

KingCheetah said:

Click to expand...

Classic!

I can't waint for the news that Batboy is seen doing shots of Jim Beam with the Bush. They'd make great drinking buddies.

wnes · Sep 23, 2005

Human bias (or bigotry, if I dare to use the term pointedly) is hardly admitted by most of us. Obviously it comes across political spectrum. Until yesterday, I, like most others, didn't think much about tabloids, the National Enquirer being one of them. Then I heard the conversation between the host of a local radio program and the head of the Enquirer talked about this break-out story. The guy doesn't sound like a con artist to me. I even had the impression that he had voted for Bush, perhaps twice.

Here's a pretty rational article on Slate.com regarding the Enquirer.

I Believe the National Enquirer - Why don't you?
By Jack Shafer
Posted Friday, June 11, 2004, at 4:04 PM PT

Almost three decades ago, the National Enquirer abandoned the traditional supermarket tabloid formula of UFOs, bizarre sex, séances, gross-outs, Loch Ness-ish monsters, cooked-up stories, and celebrity gossip for a new formula mostly devoted to celebrities. Striving for the kind of journalistic accuracy that repels libel suits, the tabloid paid many of its sources and scrupulously reported and fact-checked its pieces about Cher, Liz and Dick, Jackie O., Liza, Henry Kissinger, Burt and Loni, and the original Charlie's Angels.

By the time of the 1994 Nicole Brown Simpson-Ron Goldman murders, the Enquirer truth machine had become so good that reporter David Margolick was toasting it in the New York Times for scooping the competition—and applauding it for spiking many of the false stories that appeared in mainstream media.

One would think that the Enquirer's discovery of accurate journalism would have elevated its reputation. Instead, the tabloid is regarded slightly worse today than it was in 1985, according to a new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Respondents were asked to rate news organizations on a 1-to-4 scale, with 1 representing "I believe all or most" of what the news organization says and 4 representing "I believe almost nothing." Only 4 percent of the polled group believed all or most of what the Enquirer says, and a whopping 61 percent believed nothing. Back in June 1985, a similar Pew survey found that 4 percent believed all or most of what the Enquirer said, and 54 percent believed almost nothing.

Continue Article

Compare the Enquirer's survey numbers to those of USA Today's: Fifteen percent believe all or most of what USA Today says, and only 8 percent believe nothing it says (55 percent chose believability values 2 or 3; 21 percent ventured no judgment of the paper). USA Today's overall score is similar to the ones recorded for other mainstream media, such as NBC News, the New York Times, and CNN, to name a few.

The Enquirer's relatively bad rep presents a paradox that is not easily resolved. The Enquirer may overplay stories, as it does in the most recent issue (June 14, 2004) by describing Jessica "Washingtonienne" Cutler in a headline as the center of a "Bush Sex Scandal" when all she's confessed to is having slept with an unnamed Bush appointee for money. But the particulars of the Enquirer story appear to be true. 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.

Yes, the Enquirer tackles mostly tacky and sordid subjects and treats them breathlessly, but if you correct for stylistic overkill, you find a publication that is every bit as accurate as mainstream media. I would, however, advise Enquirer readers to take all anonymous quotes they find in the tabloid's pages with a large shaker of salt. Maybe with a bag of salt. (Of course, I have the same bias against anonymous quotes in the mainstream press.)

Only somebody who 1) never reads the Enquirer or 2) wanted the poll-taker to think he's superior to the tabloid would rank it as low as the poll respondents did. Indeed, as the Pew people told me, respondents didn't have to be readers or viewers of the media outlets to pass judgment for the poll. They only had to be willing to offer an opinion or decline to offer an opinion. (In the Enquirer's case, 18 percent of respondents wouldn't rate the tabloid, a number that is very close to the "no opinion offered" number recorded for other print publications in the Pew poll.)

The insupportably low numbers earned by the Enquirer make sense when you compare them with those garnered by People magazine, Time-Warner's colossus of triviality and inconsequence. Only 6 percent of respondents believe all or most of what People says, and 25 percent believe nothing from it. (Rounding out the numbers, 47 percent chose values 2 or 3; 21 percent gave no opinion.)

People might not be your cup of java, but a human army of fact-checkers and editors labor over it every week, making it as accurate as the phone book. I can understand why the dodgy legacy of the Enquirer might predispose non-readers against it, but what could any reader or non-reader have against People?

The respondents who judged People (and the National Enquirer) so poorly are dead wrong, and the pollsters at Pew (for whom I have much respect) should be taken to the woodshed for having designed a rickety survey. When you gather opinions from people on subjects of which they know little or nothing, you're only collecting interesting garbage.

The Pew poll does, however, cast some unintentional illumination. It shows that no matter how accurate the National Enquirer or any tabloid might become, readers and non-readers (especially) will never forgive it its dubious past, especially if it sticks with the distinctive "trade dress" of a supermarket tabloid—sensational headlines printed in yellow; a red, white, and black logo; glossy newsprint stock. And it proves that folks would rather judge a publication (People) for where it lives—on a supermarket checkout wire rack alongside such deliberately unbelievable publications as the Weekly World News and the Sun—than for what's printed inside.
Click to expand...

Dreamshake · Sep 23, 2005

MartianMan said:

You guys are NOT welcomed here. Heck, you guys can't even take care of your own planet, you aren't coming near ours.
Click to expand...

Weather you want us or not, Bush has already conjured up Bogus WMD charges and is sending in the National Guard, with his mission to clean up martian Tuurroriss.

Dreamshake · Sep 23, 2005

And BTW. Why is this story so hard to believe.

We know that

1. Bush was a drunkard.

2. Bush was Busted for a DUI at the age of 30.

3. Bush proclaimed to be clean since 76 or something like that.

4. There is video proof of him drunk after 76.

5. Bush never got any kind of professional help for his addiction.

6. Bush is a Liar.

Is it impossible to believe, that hes off the wagon? I mean really is it? Or that he ever was truely on the Wagon, and not just a hidden drunkard his whole life? Would explain his speech problems, and his sheer stupidity in more then several speaking engagements.

TMac640 · Sep 23, 2005

how the **** is this thread even getting replies?

Rocket River · Sep 23, 2005

The part of George Bush will be played by Colonel Tigh of BattleStar Galactica

Rocket River

Rocket River · Sep 23, 2005

Dreamshake said:

And BTW. Why is this story so hard to believe.

We know that

1. Bush was a drunkard.

2. Bush was Busted for a DUI at the age of 30.

3. Bush proclaimed to be clean since 76 or something like that.

4. There is video proof of him drunk after 76.

5. Bush never got any kind of professional help for his addiction.

6. Bush is a Liar.

Is it impossible to believe, that hes off the wagon? I mean really is it? Or that he ever was truely on the Wagon, and not just a hidden drunkard his whole life? Would explain his speech problems, and his sheer stupidity in more then several speaking engagements.
Click to expand...

I thought the Clean since '76
was about the Cocaine

Rocket River

halfbreed · Sep 23, 2005

TMac640 said:

how the **** is this thread even getting replies?
Click to expand...

I think most of us like how wnes is backing himself into the corner of having to defend the National Enquirer.

No Worries · Sep 24, 2005

I for one can not see how a drunk GWB is any worse than a sober one.

Zboy · Sep 24, 2005

No Worries said:

I for one can not see how a drunk GWB is any worse than a sober one.
Click to expand...

In fact, I would have more confidence in a drunk Bush than a sober one in terms of political decisions.

wnes · Sep 24, 2005

Interesting, odds makers are betting on whether President Bush falls off the wagon after they learned the National Enquirer (for the first time ever, I bought one today at a local supermaket) published the story on Bush hitting the bottles.

BetCRIS.com has released odds on whether or not our beseiged president is truly back to his old habit:

5 to 1 odds that Bush is exposed for drinking alcohol during his presidency

Some other odds:

- 15 to 1 odds that Bush actually admits to drinking alcohol

- 40 to 1 odds that Bush checks in to a rehab program

- 2 to 1 odds that Bush becomes a preacher

- 300 to 1 odds that Bush is converted to Judaism

- 500 to 1 odds that Bush becomes a Muslim

- 35 to 1 odds that Bush becomes a spokesman for Viagra/Cialis

One of the few odds BetCRIS.com has chosen not to post is whether George W. gets impeached. Moreover, to the relief of Bush supporters, faith in Bush is still very high even from professional gamblers. BetCRIS.com lists "None of the Above" as an overwhelming 1 to 500 favorite.

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/9/emw289525.htm

No Worries · Sep 27, 2005

Saint Louis · Sep 27, 2005

No Worries said:

Click to expand...

Putin, could you be a pal and send me over another case of that clear stuff that looks like water but has an awesome kick to it?

A-Train · Sep 27, 2005

The Weekly World News has just learned of the Republican party's nomination for the presidency in 2008...

Deckard · Sep 27, 2005

No Worries said:

Click to expand...

Is that a photo of Dan Rather in the background? Bush is drunk!!

Keep D&D Civil!!

MadMax · Sep 27, 2005

Deckard said:

Is that a photo of Dan Rather in the background? Bush is drunk!!

Keep D&D Civil!!
Click to expand...

actually..it looks like tony blair!

now THERE'S an Enquirer story for ya!

Deckard · Sep 27, 2005

MadMax said:

actually..it looks like tony blair!

now THERE'S an Enquirer story for ya!
Click to expand...

Dang, I think you're right!! Bush and Blair, having an affair!!!!!

KingCheetah · Sep 27, 2005

-- BUSH & BATBOY BOOZE IT UP --

The picture they didn't want you to see

bigtexxx · Sep 27, 2005

National Enquirer, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, the BBC = CRAP

Forums

Succumb to pressure of crises, Bush hittin' the bottles agains

wnes Contributing Member

Saint Louis Member

wnes Contributing Member

Dreamshake Member

Dreamshake Member

TMac640 Contributing Member

Rocket River Member

Rocket River Member

halfbreed Member

No Worries Member

Zboy Member

wnes Contributing Member

No Worries Member

Saint Louis Member

A-Train Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

MadMax Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
Supporting Member

bigtexxx Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Succumb to pressure of crises, Bush hittin' the bottles agains

wnes Contributing Member

Saint Louis Member

wnes Contributing Member

Dreamshake Member

Dreamshake Member

TMac640 Contributing Member

Rocket River Member

Rocket River Member

halfbreed Member

No Worries Member

Zboy Member

wnes Contributing Member

No Worries Member

Saint Louis Member

A-Train Member

Deckard Blade Runner Supporting Member

MadMax Member

Deckard Blade Runner Supporting Member

KingCheetah Atomic Playboy Supporting Member

bigtexxx Member

Share This Page

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
Supporting Member