Bennett et al: I’m not judging the Enquirer as somehow shady for paying its sources. The Economist Intelligencer Unit, Ergo and other companies that publish expensive business news also pay their sources. It’s a great way to get information, of course, and a totally legit practice in most…

Hold on there. About your last line: But since (presumably) none of the other outlets had the same advantage, it’s totally unfair.

Pulitzer magnets like the NY Times and WashPost have the financial wherewithal (for e.g., foreign bureaus, travel, technology, manpower, “fixers,” etc.) their smaller competitors can never hope to equal.i  Is that fair? Of course not. The NE is doing what all competitive organizations do: it’s exploiting its relative advantages. In this case, that means paying sources and reveling in the misery of the Edwards family. The Times could do that if they wanted to. It’s not illegal. They don’t want to—usually. Right, Gov. Spitzer and Titantic survivor whom the Times paid way back when for Pulitzer-winning coverage?