Online Entries Shut Out in Pulitzers: Why?

For the first time, the venerable Pulitzer Prize board this year allowed entries from "online-only" news sites for its 14 journalism awards (there was no separate category). At my magazine, Editor & Publisher, we have charted the response ever since, revealing the names of some of the sites that entered early on and the rules.

Now the Pulitzer Prizes for 2009 have been awarded, and no online-only outlet got a single win, or even a finalist nod. A mainly online site at the St. Petersburg Times, PolitiFact, did get a prize, and in a growing trend, half of the 14 winners had significant multimedia content.

So what happened?

We reported exclusively late yesterday that indeed, the board received 65 entries from online sites (from 37 separate sites) but 21 were rejected outright-- a rather high number.

The explanation from Pulitzer chief Sig Gissler was that these sites were not "primarily" presenters of original content, but more focused on aggregating. So they were dismissed.

That means that if a certain site broke the biggest and most significant story of the year, but didn't do mainly original reporting, it would not even be considered. Apparently.

Gissler told us that he felt the online sites got a fair shake and were considered as equals in all categories--at least the ones that weren't disqualified. "They have made a successful step forward for the Pulitzer Prizes," he declared. Blogs can be considered for the commentary and criticism prizes, but still must come from sites with mainly original reporting.

It's not known if any objections to the rules were raised by the six jurors who came from online-only sites, such as ProPublica and MinnPost.com, or if any changes will come down. Stay tuned. But I noted THAT in a tweet last night from Joan Walsh, editor of Salon, that it seems that her online magazine did not enter this year -- nothing from Mark Benjamin? -- and that she is considering trying next year.
*
Greg Mitchell is editor of Editor & Publisher. His new book is "Why Obama Won."

Comments

[neroden]

If this is the case, why doesn't the Pulitzer Committee award the prize to the REPORTER who is aggregated, and to any people backing said reporter? What's with this bias towards awarding to institutions which "primarily produce original content"? If I have never produced original content before and never will again, I could *still* do the greatest reporting of the year (if, for instance, I stumbled onto a major scandal, and tracked it down and reported it due to obsessive principledness) -- see Jesselyn Radack and many other whistleblowers who ended up operating without newspaper support.

Gissler loses, and hurts the Pulitzer's reputation -- sad for the heirs to the legacy of _The World_ newspaper. The mass of recycled content should have disqualified almost every newspaper in the country, including the Las Vegas Sun, if they weren't just being biased -- I can see restrictions for some categories, but not for others.

[larry278]

The Pulitzer committee is not biased against on-line only news sources. The do not want to reward media which does not generate most of the content which it uses & posts. The Pulitizer committee wants old fashioned original content.. Will traditional MSM be forced to stop using wire service copy or only allowed to have less than 10% of each editions content? Yes, & when I put my dentures under my pillow tonight-I'll find $7,000.00 & my dentures under my pillow when I get up in the morning.
HP won't become the USA's 1st on-line newspaper of record till Aug '09 either. The Pulitzer committee is dedicated to up-holding the traditional standards of journalists, newspapers & newspaper publishing.

[jcutbirth]

Before you start throwing all this stuff around and trying to make a stir, sir, would you at least give us a list of five online journalistic works that in your opinion outweight at least one of the three finalists in any category and name the finalist it outweighed.

How about that. Just asking for you to step forward and put yourself out there instead of lobbing grenades. Let us look at what you think deserved to be a finalist and what you think did not.

Then, we can have this discussion.

[larry278]

Why bother? Journalism is an occupation, not a profession. Standards for journalism, for journalists, are you serious? LOL
Orgies of self congratulation don't deserve discussion. The lampoon & caustic satire for the Pulitzers are appropriate. Bring out the ripe rotten tomatoes. How does one mistake a rotten tomato for a hand grenade?