The Pulitzer Prize Enters the 21st Century (Sort Of)
The committee has also made some fairly spectacular mistakes, most memorably its disgraceful decision to award the 1932 prize to Walter Duranty for his series of grotesque propaganda pieces touting the alleged economic miracle of the Soviet Union. In 1981, the committee was taken in completely by Janet Cook’s faked articles about an eight-year-old heroin addict.
In recent years, thanks to the Internet, criticisms about the committee’s leftward tilt have grown a bit louder. In 2005, conservatives were outraged that the committee awarded the photography prize to an AP stringer who demonstrably had an uncomfortably and immorally close relationship to terrorists in Iraq. The outrage soared again in 2006, when the committee proudly awarded laurels to two newspaper articles that compromised American security. (Given Joseph Pulitzer’s love for the military, I doubt he would have been very pleased with that decision.)
Still, criticisms notwithstanding, the Pulitzer Prize is still a big deal in the journalistic world. The question, though, is how much longer the journalistic world that the the Pulitzer Prize celebrates will exist. With the New York Times mired in debt, and the Tribune Company (which publishes the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune) in bankruptcy, it’s anybody’s guess whether journalism as we’ve known it will still be around a few years from now.
Recognizing the handwriting on the wall, the Pulitzer Prize committee has decided to be proactive. In addition to traditional print media, it will now recognize contributions from a narrowly described range of publications that exist only in cyberspace:
While broadening the competition, the Board stressed that all entered material whether online or in print should come from United States newspapers or news organizations that publish at least weekly, that are “primarily dedicated to original news reporting and coverage of ongoing stories,” and that “adhere to the highest journalistic principles.”
In theory, this sounds like a very good idea. In fact, the committee’s track record, especially in recent years, leads one to believe that it will cling to the old progressive stalwarts, whether they appear in hard copy or virtual form, and will shun the exceptional investigative reporting that routinely emanates from the conservative blogosphere.
You may recall that it was bloggers whose investigative efforts broke open the Rathergate scandal. Likewise, it was a constant drumbeat from bloggers that kept the execrable Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, etc., in the public eye, even when the print media couldn’t be pried away from its leg quivering hagiographic reports about Barack Obama. It was also dedicated work from bloggers that exposed the myriad lies in news coverage about the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.
Admittedly, bloggers are often a diffuse crew, with data streaming in from points all over the globe. Nevertheless, all of us recognize important consolidators, those bloggers who, functioning in the manner of traditional journalists, combine independent investigation with the synthesis of myriad disparate sources to create lucid exposes and analysis of current events.
For example, Bob Owens, writing at Pajamas Media and his own blog Confederate Yankee, used his investigative skills to humiliate the venerable New Republic magazine, which had blithely printed Scott Beauchamp’s appalling stories painting troops in the American military as psychopaths right out of A Clockwork Orange. Again, the traditional media unquestioningly accepted a narrative that fit into its world view (the Walter Duranty stuff all over again), but a dedicated, inquisitive, intelligent blogger ferreted out the real story.
In a just world, the prize committee would recognize bloggers such as Owens for their contributions to truth, justice, and the American way. But this isn’t a fairy tale, there’s no Superman, and I can assure you that, cyberspace contributors notwithstanding, the prize committee will continue to award prizes to a bizarre mélange of decent reporters and progressive crackpots, all the while assiduously ignoring the wonderful citizen journalism that is keeping alive Joseph Pulitzer’s deep commitment to an able and public-spirited press.
Journalism requires critical thinking and research skills, maintaining an open and neutral predisposition, a logical yet skeptical mind, being able to put things in context, being able to sort out rumors from facts, and getting off your butt occasionally to actually investigate and look into matters further as needed.
Look at any conservative blog or media source, from the excitable numbnuts at Hot Air and the Free Republic to the supposedly more serious and restrained National Review and Weekly Standard, and compare them to the the most minor, obscure progressive blog — they all just suck as genuine news sources. There is nothing to indicate that they will ever amount to more than a random and motley collection people offering up opinion, complaints and charges based on a very, very fuzzy, and usually distorted information. Blogs and such are just a new flavor of Usenet with pretty graphics, videos, and fonts. No more, no less.
Right. Conservative bloggers are usually factually-challenged. Some rely on repeating the big lie until they convince enough people the lie is true. Hardly sound journalsim. Hardly credible.
While the assertions of BC aremostly just hot air, there’s a lot of truth in his comments about this just being Usenet. It follows the same path and generates groups almost as fast. The real problem conservative sites have isn’t anything to do with the quality of their work. Good journalists have already come along and I’m sure there will many more. The problem is, they’re going to act a lot like republicans.
What’s wrong with that, you ask? Well from decades of experience, as well as having a high school pal who has been in politics for those decades, republicans make problems for themselves as soon as you get more than six of them together. For some reason, you get just one too many republicans in a group and without a doubt there will be a clique formed within a matter of minutes. Oh, it won’t be over those tacky things like race, wealth, or even religion. It’ll be over things like, “he’s too enthusiastic”, “she’s got a degree from some cow college”, “his jokes are sort of tacky”. You get the picture, “not our kind, dear”.
Maybe, for example, repubs 1, 3, and 5, who band together and begin to work at keeping discussion focused on only “the right” topics. Maybe they decide that passing out tinfoil hat awards will make them look serious and shut up those energetic types who blab too much. They’ll work to ensure that their image isn’t tainted with all that nonsense. So, soon the clique will have unspoken rules, the blogs will limit input, and the readership will shrink fall off, and there won’t be so many around to see the fine reportage other than on rare occasions. One, Three, and Five, however, can form an even nicer group of blogs to roam among congratulating one another that their problems come from their efforts to do all the right things.
Lefties have cliques, too, but lefties tolerate all sorts of off color, poor taste humor. There are usually a lot of inane messages to scroll through before getting to something worthwhile, and just about any topic a weirdo wondering past wants’ to bring up gets some attention (if it’s not conservative, of course). Consequently, it’s not just lefties 1, 3, and 5, who feel like they belong and can get enthusiastic when the better writers (remember that leftie clique) say something needs attention and lots of vocal support. Lefties don’t right off the bat start trying to keep the unwashed masses quiet an in peanut gallery. They realize that they don’t have to actually hang out with these people other than in the e-world. They also realize how valuable it is for people to feel like they’re a part of something and that their enthusiasm is appreciated.
I hate to say it, but the conservative blogs will go the way of the other conservative stuff. A clique will emerge, they’ll have the right sort of credentials (whatever that is these days), and they’ll frown on newcomers, trying to tag them with things like, “Voodoo economics”, and “tinfoil proooofers”, especially if they seem to excite others a bit. They’ll really frown on enthusiasm except during the final weeks of a campaign. The rest of the time, those loud blabby folks can just stick to the peanut gallery and be seen, not heard. They can mumble a bit now and then, but please don’t let them get off onto all that stuff that doesn’t match the self-image the republican clique has of itself. There are a few sites that don’t fit that mold, but they’re not from traditional republicans, and they end up banned from google and such for being oh so incorrect and covered in tinfoil. The majority, though, are pretty much country club blogs. How’s that country club approach been working out for those who defend the party from the nutcake mases?
have a nice day
If Pulitzer remains consistent the prize will go to something like Democratic Underground.
Good conservative sites link to articles and facts, providing evidence to support their claims, Rashputin.
“Consequently, it’s not just lefties 1, 3, and 5, who feel like they belong and can get enthusiastic when the better writers (remember that leftie clique) say something needs attention and lots of vocal support. Lefties don’t right off the bat start trying to keep the unwashed masses quiet an in peanut gallery. They realize that they don’t have to actually hang out with these people other than in the e-world. They also realize how valuable it is for people to feel like they’re a part of something and that their enthusiasm is appreciated.”
The paragraph above seems true only in R’s mind.
Good journalism requires actually working a story, not just commenting on what someone else has already verified. Blogs are opinion-makers only.
Dear Fellow Contributors: I actually want to PUKE when I read your ridiculous commentary. No where should “conservative” reporting be considered real “journalism” worthy of any award, no less the esteemed Pulitzer. Self-styled “conservative” news outlets are not news outlets at all. They are simply OPINION outlets, and bad ones at that. Any news organization that takes a particular stance is an “opinion” organization, and really should be banned by law. I’m not talking about legitimate news organizations, such as the New York Times and MSNBC. But sources of Nazi-like propaganda like Fox, Rush Limbaugh, and Victor Davis Hanson should be banned from print and the web. We need to protect free speech by washing away those who actually aim to propagate un-truths. Rashputin is correct; Lefties are tolerant, smart people who write really well and deserve the awards they give each other.
“Lefties are tolerant, smart people who write really well and deserve the awards they give each other.”
Not quite what I said, but thanks for displaying the way that lefties always stay on message and misquote or expand things to suit themselves. Tolerating nutcases in order to keep them involved isn’t the same thing as being tolerant; it’s more like taking advantage of, but whatever. Always being on the offense is their key advantage, the republican “in crowd” are already worried that some of their crowd might get off the bench rather than sitting calmly until the other team sets up for a play they think they can counter. That’s why the scoreboard looks so good right now, the republican folks waited all year to pick just the right play to counter.
At least they finally got a woman on the team who stayed on the field every play and didn’t just wait for the right opportunity to do something.
have a nice day
It looks like some of those newly-unemployed lefty journalists have come here to vent.
I’m struggling to figure out whether “James” is being serious, or sarcastic.