The Washington Post team of Cenziper and Cohen noted in an interview that, at their paper, gender has become largely irrelevant as more and more women have risen to power—including new managing editor Elizabeth Spayd (in January, she became the first woman in that post in the paper’s history) and publisher Katharine Weymouth, granddaughter of the Post’s legendary leader, the late Katharine Graham. The Post’s investigative journalism ranks, once largely male (think Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward), have increasingly included women reporters in recent years. Veteran national security reporter Dana Priest won Pulitzers in 2006 and 2008 for her investigative work, and was also a Goldsmith finalist in both years. Jo Becker, who was at the Post for about seven years before joining The New York Times, shared last year’s Pulitzer for national reporting with Barton Gellman for a Post investigative series on former Vice-President Dick Cheney. The duo earlier won the 2008 Goldsmith investigative reporting prize for that series. And Susan Schmidt, now at The Wall Street Journal, won the 2006 Pulitzer for investigative reporting (and was a Goldsmith finalist as well) as part of a Washington Post team that unearthed congressional corruption involving Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
So keep an eye out for the Cenziper/Cohen series, “Forced Out,” whose Goldsmith win certainly makes it a strong contender for this year’s Pulitzer Prizes, which will be announced on April 20 (Shorenstein director Jones has said that the Goldsmith Prize is often “the Golden Globe to the Pulitzers’ Oscars”). The seven main pieces and twenty follow-ups demonstrated how D.C. landlords forced tenants out of rent-controlled apartments—often by refusing to make repairs or turning off the heat—apparently to make way for more lucrative new housing. The Shorenstein Center said that, as a result of the investigation, the Washington D.C. attorney general sued twenty-three landlords, the city fired half of its housing inspection force, and “The Tenant Protection Act of 2008” was introduced.
The Goldsmith awards provide a snapshot of the progress of women in investigative and public affairs journalism over the past two decades. Overall, since 1992, there have been sixteen women among the more than fifty journalists on the winning investigative reporting teams, and six of the eighteen career journalism awards have gone to women. The Goldsmith journalism book awards, however, have overwhelmingly gone to men, with only three women—including Mayer this year—among the thirty-three award-winning authors and co-authors.
Mayer noted that women had increasingly moved into covering national security issues that were once the domain of male reporters. Things have come a long way for her personally since 1984, when she became the first female White House correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. She recalls being told by one editor that the male reporters would be doing the national security stories, but she would be the one that would have to cover Nancy Reagan’s designer wardrobe if need be.
“Women at the top have made a big difference,” said Mayer, who was hired at The New Yorker by then-editor Tina Brown, and co-authored an earlier book with Jill Abramson, now the managing editor at The New York Times.
The latest Goldsmith awards “show how far women have come in the important jobs in journalism,” said longtime journalist Ellen Hume, a former Washington reporter with Mayer at the Journal and, earlier, a reporter at the Los Angeles Times’s Washington bureau. Hume is now the research director at the cutting-edge Center for Future Civic Media at MIT.
The Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting, administered by the Shorenstein Center, honors journalism that “best promotes more effective and ethical conduct of government, the making of public policy, or the practice of politics.” The Goldsmith awards are funded by an annual grant from the Goldsmith Fund of the Greenfield Foundation. The winner among the six previously announced finalists was kept secret until the Tuesday night ceremony.

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