2010 Pulitzer Prizes: Good News

The 2010 Pulitzer Prizes were good news that not only reinforced the notion of what good journalism is, but they also, by what they left out, reminded us of what bad journalism is.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

This year's Pulitzer Prizes for journalism not only rewarded good news, they were good news.

The best news was that the scandal sheet, the National Enquirer, neither won an award nor was a finalist for breaking the story of candidate John Edwards's sordid affair and the birth of his out-of-wedlock love child.

Even though the National Enquirer got the facts right when it dug up the dirt on the horrendously hypocritical, adulterous presidential candidate Edwards and gave him the biggest black eye of the year, it would have given serious journalism a black eye if the Enquirer had won a Pulitzer Prize.

Giving an award to the Enquirer would have legitimized the tabloid, celebrity-bashing, UFO-sighting, sensationalistic press. It would have been like giving Jack the Ripper a medal for reducing the number of prostitutes on the streets of London.

Some other good news from the Pulitzer Prizes was that high-quality public interest journalism is still alive and well and not just published by the usual suspects -- the Washington Post and the New York Times. The top award, the one for Public Service went to the Bristol, Virginia, Herald Courier, and the award for Breaking News went to the Seattle Times staff.

Also, the Pulitzer Prize Board for the first time admitted that the internet exists and that there were reporters doing good work who didn't work for an organization that didn't print news on dead trees. The prize for Editorial Cartooning went to Mark Fiore, a self syndicated cartoonist whose work appears on SFGate.com, and the prize for Investigative Reporting was shared by Barbara Laker and Wendy Ruderman of the Philadelphia Daily News and by Sheri Fink of ProPublica, in collaboration with the New York Times Magazine.

Howard Kurtz writes in the Washington Post:

This is a glimpse of an unexpected future: a battered newspaper business, an idealistic start-up with a deep-pocketed liberal backer, and dogged reporters who otherwise might be out of work. If the Times was piggybacking on ProPublica -- which covered about half the $400,000 cost of the investigation -- the paper has plenty of company.

"That's what we're here for," says Paul Steiger, the former Wall Street Journal managing editor who founded ProPublica and makes its stories available to interested outlets. "The goal is not about getting credit. The goal is getting the story before the eyes of the people who can most benefit from it."

Herbert Sandler, a 78-year-old former bank owner who is giving the venture roughly $10 million a year, says his motivation is simple: "I can't stand the abuse of power. I can't stand corruption. I can't stand the powerful taking advantage of those with less power.

It's interesting, but not surprising, that the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal hasn't won a Pulitzer Prize since Paul Steiger left as managing editor. Before Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal, it was a regular, multiple winner. Steiger resigned as the WSJ Managing Editor in May, 2007, after the Pulitzer Prize Board announced two WSJ prizes for work done under Steiger in 2006.

Since Murdoch hatchet man Robert Thompson took over as editor of the Wall Street Journal, the venerable business-oriented paper has increased its coverage of national and political news in an attempt to compete with the New York Times, which Murdoch has been trying to buy for years unsuccessfully. So, in typical Murdoch fashion, if he can't ruin good journalism by buying a paper that practices it, he'll try to ruin that paper financially in an angry fit of revenge.

Murdoch is slowly trying to turn the Wall Street Journal into an up-scale National Enquirer. He doesn't care about public service or good journalism or Pulitzer Prizes. His prize is profit, power, and revenge. Too bad he's taking a great paper like the Journal down the pandering path.

The 2010 Pulitzer Prizes were good news that not only reinforced the notion of what good journalism is, but they also, by what they left out, reminded us of what bad journalism is.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot