Hellere John Edwards end Tiger Woods

I forlængelse af et indlæg fra tidligere i dag om The National Enquirers chancer for at vinde årets Pulitzer, blåstempler New York Times nu sladderbladets dækning - og mere til.

Ross Douthat skriver således i en op-ed, at The National Enquirer måske endda har fortjent at vinde prisen.

Hans begrundelse hviler på flere overvejelser. Først den oplagte:

"If the supermarket tabloid’s reporters hadn’t gone digging where other journalists declined to even tread, we might never have learned how close the Democratic Party came to nominating a truly disgraceful character for the presidency."

Dernæst en lidt mere interessant overvejelse:

"Such journalistic reticence [altså de traditionelle mediers tilbageholdenhed] might be defended as a means to a less prurient and sex-obsessed culture, which heaven knows we could use. But the gossip machine will grind on irrespective of what the major newspapers report. If Americans aren’t reading about Edwards and Rielle Hunter, they’ll just read about Tiger Woods or the Jolie-Pitts instead."

Og så det mest interessante - i direkte forlængelse af ovenstående:

"Better the former than the latter. Watching Woods unburden himself last Friday made me think: This really shouldn’t be any of my business. I’ve never had the same thought watching John Edwards confess his sins. Athletes and actors don’t work for us directly; they’re entrusted with great wealth and fame, but not great power."

Hvis man køber det argument - og hvis man tænker Se og Hør ind i den forståelse - skulle Qvortrup og co. jo have vundet Cavlingen for Khaders sorte arbejde (hvis det var sort).

// © MPH