posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 11:41 AM
I'll make this brief.... For the second time in somewhat recent history The National Enquirer, of all places, has been the organization that has
"broken" a story before anyone else. Yes, it was about a Hollywierd star having HIV (not necessarily Earth shattering news, but they did their
investigation and all that).
Prior to that, a few years back, they also broke the John Edwards affair deal. (If I recall correctly they either won or were in the running to win a
Pulitzer for that one).
Personally, the only time I ever even see the cover of the National Enquirer is when I'm waiting on line at the supermarket. More often than not, I
can't even recognize the person featured on the cover (I guess I'm not that hip with current reality show celebrities).
That being said, I have thought for a while now that too many people automatically dismiss some stories/articles/reports simply because it comes from
. Now, I'm not saying people should believe everything they read. I'm also not saying that there aren't extremely extreme
false "news outlets" out there. I am saying that I encourage people to at least perform a cursory review of an article being presented before
dismissing it immediately.
After all, I suspect it is more or less the consensus on this site that the big major media outlets lie (either outright or by omission) and twist and
tilt the "facts" to further their agendas. By doing so it forces many of us to look towards other, less mainstream sources.
edit on 19-11-2015 by eluryh22 because: typo
edit on 19-11-2015 by eluryh22 because: (no reason given)