I hate to say I told you so, but ______________________________________.

Martel fabricated the retracted update story due to? __________________________________________?
a) Too pressure from wining liberals?
b) The White House staff
c) Other (Please Specify) _____________________________

I’m not sure what stories you have broke exactly or when they have been wrong in the past. They reported the Edwards story before they had the gotcha moment, but they still got the story.

Frances Martel FABRICATED the retracted update NE story due to?

a) Too much pressure from whining liberals?
b) The White House staff (Rahm Emanuel)
c) Other (Please Specify) _____________________________

Because the tea partiers/birthers love this stuff! Right, Mark?

Frances didn’t fabricate the retraction. She made clear that NE retracted their claim of video footage from the online version, which they did. They didn’t retract the entire story however, which was never claimed.

The National Enquirer has no credibility, not even a shred. If you keep saying that public figures are having an affair and have a love child, eventually you’ll accidentally be right. The Edwards story just happened to be true. The NE is just a supermarket tabloid and not even worth the odd attention that Mediaite gives it.

There’s a reason that anything the NE says is ignored and will continue to be: Remember the story of the the boy who cried wolf? That’s it, in a nutshell.

You are right to point out that the Edwards’ story was happening in real time.

What is missing from your piece is the observation that practically everyone took the tone of this column when the Enquirer’s first Edwards article appeared. That tone was: attack the paper for looking into the story.

When the Enquirer’s 2nd Edwards piece appeared 9 weeks later, the tone changed to a deafening silence. No one, including Mediate, even commented on a story that was loaded with names, pictures, dates and details. Nor would anyone comment on it for 8 long months.

Whether this story turns into anything larger or not, your piece is largely the type that was published during the Edwards Scandal. You may be correct in your condemnation, but you have no way of knowing.

It’s another example of people who don’t have knowledge of a story or its inner workings–in other words, people who sit on their asses–attacking those who have actually done work on the story.

“…and hope that with all this blood in the water someone will bite.”

And just like clockwork, Mediaite took the bait. Hook, line, and sinker.

Drudge’s goal is to get the rest of the media to talk about the story, even if that talk is to knock the story down. He knows that as long as the story is bouncing around, it doesn’t matter whether its credible or not, because perpetuating the discussion itself is the goal, regardless of the content of the discussion.

Look at the public opinion polls about the birth certificate issue, and you’ll see that as long as the issue is continually being discussed, there are enough ignorant people that take the existence of the discussion itself as evidence of its credibility.

Drudge is using the exact same strategy on this story, and yet the professional “media observers” at Mediaite aren’t smart enough to see through this simple yet effective ploy for which they are gladly participating.

The Truth about the Barack Obama – Vera Baker Affair http://bit.ly/baMFBP

Let’s set the record straight.

I don’t believe it, because I think Michelle Obama scares the crap out of Barrack.
I feel sorry for him….

The National Enquirer’s credibily??? I think Mediaite’s credibility is more the issue here.

To bad their source wasn’t media matters, that would not be a shadily sourced story then right Glynnis?

Here’s a simple answer to your question Glyynis: Because they don’t give a shit about their credibility!

And apparently, neither does Mediaite as you’ve proven that when Drudge says jump, you’ll slobber all over yourselves waiting to scream “HOW HIGH?!”

The primary issue here is that a website purporting to be an expert on media issues (that’s you Mediaite) was a complete failure when it came to a very simple analysis of fact in the original story, and then went on to use the Drudge link as a crutch to justify that initial failure.

Your reporter first claimed that the link in and of itself lent “credibility” to the story, and then a subsequent edit backtracked to “significance and impact.” The initial claim of credibility is of course ridiculous on its face to a high school journalism student, and then trying to cover up with the “significance and impact” bullshit was just pathetic cover-your-assery.

If Chris Matthews brought on a terrorism expert to discuss the NYC car bomb, and that “expert” didn’t know who Al Qaeda was or how significant it was in the world of terrorism, you would laugh him out of the room.

Congratulations Mediaite, you’re the terrorism “expert” and Drudge is Al Qaeda.

Needless to say, showcase history Drudge provide the level of attention they would otherwise, and probably would not have received.
memory stick

It seems with the National Enquirer it can only be a home run or a strike out. While the National Enquirer did scoop the world on the John Edwards bastard child story, the one headline I remember them best for read something like “Two Headed Woman Pregnant by Space Aliens…Again!”

It all boils down to this: If Mr. -0bama has been messing around on Michelle (and I certainly could not blame him if he were), they have forced themselves into showing proof beyond certain of the facts.

In short, the National Enquirer has made its bones on sensationalism–not the best form of journalism, to say the least.