02-27-2014, 10:04 AM
(02-26-2014, 04:30 PM)Duchess Wrote: ...how the hell can you pay any credence to a rag like the National Enquirer. My God. Seriously, simply because they broke the John Edwards story?
Of the hundreds of stories that they run per month, The National Enquirer gets one right every now and again, like the John Edwards story.
It's sold right in front of the check-out lanes at my local Safeway store and I sometimes check it out while I wait, it's amusing fodder.
The pieces that are the least amusing, to me, are the ones exploiting someone's (alleged) illness or fresh death -- based on what the Enquirer's paid unnamed unvetted sources supposedly told their reporters. Some of the rag's classics.
Unless the coroner, the cops, and everyone who knew her is lying, Reeva wasn't pregnant.
Unless Hillary and her doctors are lying, she had a concussion. And, Whitney Houston drowned after ODing - unless the coroner is lying and the police are protecting her killers.
All on tape...yep.
I hope cops keep searching for that dude in a dark hood traipsing around some leafy undisclosed area with a garbage bag...maybe Caylee will actually get some justice some day.
Unless the Enquirer and Hoffman's best friend are both lying, the best friend never gave the rag an interview.
I don't agree that, in this day and age, a publication wouldn't release a story unless it was based in truth. I think the National Enquirer, specifically, has and would and will again release salacious false stories to generate sales and hits.
In this day and age, even generally credible news outlets that don't pay anonymous tipsters as their primary "sources", like CNN, release some false shit and have to retract when called on it.