Is The National Enquirer‘s John Edwards Work Pulitzer Prize-Worthy?

That’s the provocative claim (the web loves reactions — and clicks!) made in Emily Miller‘s column for Politics Daily, entitled “Does the National Enquirer Deserve a Pulitzer for Breaking the John Edwards Scandal?” Well, Ms. Miller, what does the paper deserve?

“I believe the time has come for us to recognize the Enquirer’s political investigative reporting,” she writes, fairly.

Though I don’t know the other nominees for the 2009 investigative category (the deadline isn’t until February), and I’m sure there are many worthy entries, it’s clear to me that the Enquirer deserves consideration for what remains the highest honor in American journalism.

With the press overflow well on for 2008 campaign memoir Game Change, and an Edwards-specific excerpt in this week’s New York, the Rielle Hunter/baby daddy is back with an adulterous vengeance — just in time for journalism’s award season.

And as Miller writes: “Despite the legwork reporting done by the National Enquirer, there’s little evidence that any of the reporters covering the Edwards campaign were interested in ascertaining if the accusations were true,” so maybe it is a time to teach that status quo Washington press corp what’s what. In this particularly egregious example, they were scooped for nearly a year, Miller argues.

Sure, it sounds link-baiting, but Miller’s argument isn’t as crazy as it sounds and her analysis and background are trenchant — deserving of a full read and legitimate consideration. “The TV networks and many print outlets have dismantled or cut back their investigative teams,” she writes, “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.”

Why not give them a nod of recognition?

Does the National Enquirer Deserve a Pulitzer for Breaking the John Edwards Scandal? [Politics Daily]