“I am telling you, tabloids aren’t always wrong. There have been many stories I’ve read that were chalked up as tabloid fodder that eventually had to be confirmed as truth. It isn’t like The National Enquirer will ever win a Pulitzer Prize, but I still give credence to many of their stories.”

The above quote (or a few different variations of it) has come from my mouth many times in recent years while discussing the latest tabloid dramas amongst my group of friends. I hastily admit that I have sung the praises of these trashy magazines so much, insisting that what I have read is true, that it has become a sort of game in my peer group to see if and when the purported gossip is revealed as fact. This, of course, prompts my calls of “I told you so!” when the tabloid-accused turns tail and admits to whatever the magazine called them out on.

Given my obvious penchant to prove my assumptions right, you can only imagine how full of “I told you so’s” I am currently in light of the most recent tabloid scandal coverage involving former Presidential candidate and North Carolina senator John Edwards. The National Enquirer exposed Edwards’ extramarital affair with Rielle Hunter as far back as 2007, continuing throughout his run for President of the United States. The Enquirer accused Edwards of not only cheating on his cancer-stricken wife,  but that he had also fathered his mistress’s newborn child (while using his aide, Andrew Young as a pawn to mask the affair and pretend that he, not Edwards, had fathered the child). Yet, for all of their in-depth coverage, word from the Edwards camp in response to The Enquirer’s information went a little something like this: “Liars!”

Too bad the liar in the whole mess was Edwards himself, who has since confirmed both the affair and the fact that he is the biological father of his mistress’s child.

Prior to the Edwards scandal, these supermarket stories have been widely known to “get it right” in many instances; so much so, in fact, that The National Enquirer even has a regular entry in their weekly acknowledging items that made headlines nationwide yet were reported by them first (and typically a lengthy time in advance). After all, it was a tabloid magazine that broke much of the evidence involved in the O.J. Simpson double-homicide case. It was a tabloid that reported Tiger Woods’ alleged infidelity in an issue that hit stands concurrent to the now infamous Escalade crash. It was a tabloid that let the world know, sadly, of Patrick Swayze’s diagnosis with pancreatic cancer. It was a tabloid that let us in on the Clinton-Lewinsky tryst, Jesse Jackson’s illegitimate child, the wild world of Jon and Kate Gosselin, of Michael Phelps’ marijuana use, and of Meredith Baxter’s sexual orientation. It was even a tabloid that ran the picture of Gary Hart - with Donna Rice in his lap - that turned the political world upside down in 1987, exposing his affair during his run for President.

This is not to say that a great majority of what the tabloids report is respectable, no matter the fact or fiction behind it. I refuse to defend their ability to destroy the lives of those in the limelight by publishing their personal details for the world to see. While some might say that is the price of fame, I personally disagree. I needn’t know someone’s sexual orientation, drug history, or marital status to fully enjoy their artistic works. Certainly being famous opens up more attention than being a layperson, yet there is a fine line of privacy that most journalists will not cross, particularly without investigation.

Still, this is not to say that what the writers do for such tabloid magazines is not journalism. It is. Journalism is defined in the simplest form as conveying news and/or opinions in a media-related medium…isn’t that what these rag mags are doing? The writers seek out a story, have sources, and often pay top dollar for the information they are given to run with and eventually turn into a story, following the format of many an investigative journalist in a more reputable journalistic field. Granted, the content may not be the most interesting for those who are not celebrity/pop culture-obsessed, but the magazines are also filled with personal interest stories about real people out of the limelight and attract readers for various other reasons (crossword puzzles, horoscopes, etc).

Also, like other more accepted forms of journalism, tabloid magazines are not always correct. Facts are misconstrued, seemingly reliable sources are discredited, and the journalists/publications involved end up with egg on their faces; or, in the case of most tabloids, the egg on their faces is soon replaced with a hefty lawsuit. For example, Carol Burnett won a judgment in 1981 against The National Enquirer, who she accused of fabricating a story claiming she was drunk in public. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie recently sued UK’s News of the World in an attempt to cease what they claim to be “false allegations” regarding consistent rumors of their breakup.

Love them or hate them, tabloids are no longer the stacks of printed paper displaying Bat Boy and alien invasions on the covers. They are the newest form of news media. News-seekers are drawn to them for the latest news, especially with many of their recent reports turning out to be so authentic. Broadcasters refer to tabloid articles during nightly discussions (think Nancy Grace, Joy Behar) and support for them has arisen in the unlikeliest of places. Marriages, infidelity, drug use, pregnancies, illness – no topics are safe from the tabloid eye and, more often than not, the reports are far more accurate than what is reported on any of our 24/7 news channels. While that does not make them any less tacky or more legitimate, credit should be given where credit is due.

Recently, credit due was given. Thanks to their extensive and correct coverage of the Edwards scandal, a campaign was held in order to get the National Enquirer nominated for a Pulitzer Prize (awarded annually for outstanding journalism). While their nomination was denied and they, as of yet, are not a Prize-winning publication, the campaign was highly supported and applauded by various high-profile news sources and talking heads (i.e. Rush Limbaugh). Therefore, I fear that I may have to eat my “It isn’t like The National Enquirer will ever win a Pulitzer Prize…”words. If they continue to be the leaders in breaking news, they just might.