Right in the middle of a self congratulatory message on the Pulitzers is this short non-sequiter:
The National Enquirer, which drew attention by entering its exposé of John Edwards fathering a child with a former presidential campaign aide, was not a finalist. The prizes are administered by Columbia University.
If the National Enquirer doesn't deserve a pulitzer, then why do they deserve a mention? Is there a bit of a guilt-trip going on here?
Given that Edward's affair seemed to be common knowledge among some of the media that travelled with him it is likely that the job of the Enquirer wasn't all that difficult. So is the MSM a bit embarrassed at not outing a fatally flawed candidate on their own, in fact, most likely covering up for him as they would not do if he had an "R" after his name?
Inquiring minds want to know.