(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	spawn_of_kong 2010-12-24 12:16 pm UTC (link)
	They may have the same level of legitimacy (i.e.: none), but I'd say The National Enquirer tries harder to be convincing than The Weekly World News did. To quote Gene Weingarten: "The Weekly World News makes The National Enquirer look like Kant's Critique of Pure Reason." (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	silrana 2010-12-24 03:58 pm UTC (link)
	The Enquirer has been known to run news stories that have been picked up later by the legit news agencies. But I'd put that in the category of a broken clock being right twice a day. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

white_serpent
2010-12-25 01:53 am UTC (link)

Not exactly. If the Enquirer asserts something is true, it almost certainly is and they can back it up. (They lost a few really expensive libel suits and decided it would NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.) This happens occasionally.

However, if an-unnamed-source-close-to-celebrity-X thinks Y might possibly be the case, it's utter trash. That's the sort of statement that's libel-proof.

Of course, you'd have to read everything to know which applied. And that's their marketing strategy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	tofuknight 2010-12-26 07:31 pm UTC (link)
	I love your icon very, very much. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -