I once heard that The Enquirer is extremely careful about verifying their stories because (for some reason I don't exactly recall) if they ever publish something libelous they would get sued into oblivion.
They are still around, and they have published a lot of scandalous stuff over the years.
What you read was (and is) true. The National Enquirer got into trouble in the late 70s for misreporting Carol Burnett’s drinking and ended up settling out of court. Ever since then, despite their lurid headlines and layouts, the Enquirer has strictly adhered to the truth; their editors demand verifiable sources from their journalists that will hold up in court.
That means they can prove their stories on Hillary, Obama, et al in court if necessary. These people may denounce or ridicule the Enquirer, but for obvious reasons their legal beagles must stay home.
I once heard that The Enquirer is extremely careful about verifying their stories because (for some reason I don't exactly recall) if they ever publish something libelous they would get sued into oblivion.
They are still around, and they have published a lot of scandalous stuff over the years.
So, in a way, they are a reputable news source.
Assuming what I read was true...
What you read was (and is) true. The National Enquirer got into trouble in the late 70s for misreporting Carol Burnett’s drinking and ended up settling out of court. Ever since then, despite their lurid headlines and layouts, the Enquirer has strictly adhered to the truth; their editors demand verifiable sources from their journalists that will hold up in court.
That means they can prove their stories on Hillary, Obama, et al in court if necessary. These people may denounce or ridicule the Enquirer, but for obvious reasons their legal beagles must stay home.