CAMBRIDGE, MA. When the team of Washington Post investigative reporters gathered in their editor’s office to put the finishing touches on a groundbreaking series on egregious housing violations in the nation’s capital, one thing caught their attention: all the people in the room were women. In a measure of how far women have come in the top ranks of journalism, it didn’t seem out of the ordinary to them. It was all in a day’s work.
The dogged reporting skills of Debbie Cenziper and Sarah Cohen earned them one of journalism’s highest (and most lucrative) honors, the $25,000 2009 Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting, awarded Tuesday night by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. The investigative editor for the Post series was newspaper veteran Barbara Vobjeda and their Metro researcher was—you guessed it—a young woman named Meg Smith.
“We noticed it at the end. We were all huddled in Barbara’s office and looked around the room and saw all women,” recalled Cenziper, who came to the Post eighteen months ago after a five-year stint at the Miami Herald. While there, she won a 2007 Pulitzer Prize for local reporting for a year-long series on housing corruption—a series that was also a Goldsmith prize finalist that year. “I’ve always worked for very strong, very competent women. So it’s not new for me,” said the thirty-eight-year-old Cenziper. Her older colleague Cohen, an expert in database reporting who shared in the Post’s 2002 Pulitzer for investigative reporting and was a 2007 Goldsmith finalist, agreed.
The prominence of women in political and investigative journalism today was affirmed several times over Tuesday evening, as women for the first time dominated the winning Goldsmith awards in political journalism, handed out at the annual Harvard Kennedy School ceremony. New Yorker writer Jane Mayer got the Goldsmith trade book prize for The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals, and PBS senior correspondent Gwen Ifill received the Goldsmith Career Award for Excellence in Journalism.
In presenting the career award, Shorenstein Center director Alex S. Jones noted that Ifill, who has just published The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, was “a breakthrough in her own right—as a woman, as an African American and—most of all—as a respected professional journalist whose sense of fairness and objectivity has made her the choice to moderate two vice-presidential debates.”
“I always wanted to be a journalist,” said Ifill, who cut her teeth at Boston and Baltimore newspapers before moving to Washington, D.C. to cover politics for The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC News. In 1999, she joined PBS as a senior correspondent for the nightly NewsHour and as moderator of the weekly political analysis roundtable. She recalled that her high school guidance counselor had discouraged her from even applying to Simmons College in Boston, but that her tenacity since then had taught her “how much extra credibility you can get by exceeding expectations.”
Ironically, when Ifill was asked why her new book on race in politics largely focuses on the recent success of African American men, she said it was because there “are a lot fewer women (politicians) at the breakthrough level than men…We’re not quite there yet.” (Video of the ceremony and her talk can be seen at the Shorenstein Web site.)

Anyone else who will say the obvious? That there is no 'gender gap' when type of work and work experience are factored in? And that the rise of female journalists that is applauded above is coterminus with a decline in the economic prospects of that industry, included in the companies for which these women work?
Everyone knows that the faculty lounge and the newsroom are two of the most politically-correct environments there are. That's what this article is (unintentionally) celebrating. Sorry to have such bad manners as to mention these things, but then P.C.-related issues are mostly about manners, rather than bedrock values.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 20 Mar 2009 at 01:51 PM
I want to thank you for this inspiring article about the breakthrough work done by those award winning female investigative journalists featured in “Gender Gap Gone?” by Cristine Russell.
If you search Yahoo for "Native American online investigative journalist," I'm #1.
I am not quite the caliber of those Cristine described but am working my hardest to answer this specific calling as we expose corruption, promote justice and give voice to the voiceless.
Our work proves why diversity is so crucial to our industry because as we shape shift from a tool for daily living to casualties recorded on ledger lines, it’s about surviving to serve our readers.
Writers write. Readers read.
The more viewpoints, the more readers, especially online.
I recently discussed “Just because we’re different does not mean we’re wrong” at a workshop at Seattle’s Rainbow Bookfest and last year, used the Medicine Wheel as the primary symbol for my presentation on diversity at one of our Society of Professional Journalists Western Washington Pro Chapter’s many journalism events.
The four directions are also the four colors; red, yellow, black and white.
If the directions and/or colors are not in balance, the wheel will not roll.
Your article focused on teams of women, also diverse among themselves, that synergized naturally to produce these excellent results, possibly made manifest by an innate intuition that turns our hunches into headlines.
That’s how it works for me, anyway.
So, thank you for this inspiring article about the impact of diversity on investigative journalism.
Sandy Frost
Award winning online nvestigative journalist, website here and author of “Shriners’ Shame: The Dark Side of the World’s Greatest Philanthropy.”
#2 Posted by Sandy Frost, CJR on Fri 20 Mar 2009 at 03:43 PM
To err is human, regardless of gender. Susan Schmidt's 2006 Pulitzer Prize for the Abramoff corruption scandal was a grave error. The key evidence in support of revoking her Pulitzer Prize is her September 26, 2004 story, which appears to be a knowingly false story. (Although her 2006 Pulitzer Prize was based on stories submitted in 2005, her September 26, 2004 story was essential to the 2005 stories submitted.) That story--followed two days later by a scathing Washington Post editorial--was the most sensational Abramoff story of them all: Abramoff had lobbied to shut down a tribal casino in western Texas just so he could appear as a savior the day after it closed, promising the tribe for a $4.2 million fee to get its casino reopened. The key was three words--'two Indian casinos"--which Schmidt foolishly included her story. Indeed, Schmidt did inform the reader that there was a second tribal casino in Texas that Abramoff was lobbying to shut down, but Schmidt neglected to mention its name. How come? The answer is that naming that second tribe's casino would have shut down her story. The second Indian casino (in eastern Texas, near Houston) happened to be only a couple of hours away from the highly lucrative casino of Abramoff's biggest tribal client near the Texas-Louisiana border, most of whose clientele came from the Houston area. That second Indian casino in eastern Texas was the one that was threatening the livelihood--if not the very existence--of the casino of Abramoff's client. Abramoff had absolutely no interest in--he couldn't have cared less about--the tribal casino in west Texas that Schmidt sensationally highlighted in her story, because that casino was 1000 miles away from his client's in Louisiana. Hence, if Schmidt had mentioned the name of the second Indian casino, even a grade-school reader would have quickly realized that Abramoff was only interested in shutting down the tribal casino in eastern Texas, not the one in western Texas. (To give you an idea of how big Texas is: Houston is closer to Chicago than it is to El Paso, which is where the tribal casino Schmidt highlighted is located.) She knew there were "two Indian casinos," because she said so in her story. But did she know the name of the second tribal casino and did she know that it threatened the livelihood of Abramoff's client in Louisiana? The answer appears to be yes. About three weeks earlier (on August 30, 2004), the Washington Post ran a story specifically naming the tribe in east Texas and stating that it was a threat Abramoff's client in Louisiana, and lo and behold, Schmidt's name appears on that very story in a tag line.
To recapitulate, Schmidt knew that there were two Indian casinos in Texas, she knew the name of that second Indian casino, and she knew it was a threat to Abramoff's nearby client in Texas, and yet she appears to have deliberately omitted the name of that second Indian casino from her "sensational" story on September 26.
The facts surrounding this story have already been brought to the attention of prominent members of the journalistic community, but no one seems to show any concern or interest. It would appear that the police are not the only ones with a "code of blue." In other words, it's okay for journalists to point out the sins and cause the destruction of others, but not if the sinner is one of their own.
Gary S. Chafetz, author of The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff
#3 Posted by Gary S. Chafetz, CJR on Fri 20 Mar 2009 at 03:44 PM
I'm glad that the women won the awards, but very offended that they didn't give the feminist movement any credit for "opening the doors." The women took the activists' work for granted and felt no inspiration to "give back" to the women's movement. Very insulting.
#4 Posted by Kathleen Trigiani, CJR on Fri 20 Mar 2009 at 09:16 PM