Now, I’m not saying prizes are ideal. It is a bit unseemly, all this journalism glad-handing, especially when the world is going to hell in a handbasket. The whole process is subjective as hell. Matt Wuerker’s cartoons are great, but are they so much better than Matt Bors’s or Jack Ohman’s? Beats me. And, um, are politics involved in prize-giving, including the Pulitzers? Let’s just say I would not be surprised.
Prizes may not be the noblest incentive to do the hard stuff (“Hey, ma. Look at me! I won!”).
But what can you do? They’re what we’ve got.
"Commercial, all in all, is better." But for some kinds of work, it often isn't possible. That's why, for instance, CJR is itself a non-profit, as are the journalism school and the university in which it resides. Just thought worth noting.
#1 Posted by Dick Tofel, CJR on Tue 17 Apr 2012 at 11:14 AM
The WSJ won a last year: Joseph Rago, probably the youngest winner the prize's history, I reckon. And well-deserved it was, too.
#2 Posted by Tunku Varadarajan, CJR on Tue 17 Apr 2012 at 12:15 PM
Brian Lamb. creator of C-SPAN, deserves a lifetime achievement Pulitzer.
#3 Posted by Carl Olson, CJR on Tue 17 Apr 2012 at 01:35 PM
Dick, Fair enough, but I'll put it this way: CJR may have have a philanthropic model, and CJR may indeed be the best, but that doesn't make the philanthropic model the best. The transitive property does not apply :) Obviously philanthropy is vital, especially these days, but commercial is still just better. And J-schools are just a whole other question.
Thanks. Tunku. Fix is made. I meant the news side.
Carl, The Pulitzers don't include TV news, but with the way media are converging, who knows?
#4 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Tue 17 Apr 2012 at 02:46 PM
Journalism prizes do highlight good work, and they inspire us to think big. But they also cut deeply into arguably more important activities. News organizations looking for recognition shift valuable resources away from the good work of beat calls and daily vigilance. With ever-smaller staffs, can we still justify dropping everything for a shot at the elusive Pulitzer?
#5 Posted by John Cox, CJR on Wed 18 Apr 2012 at 01:42 PM
A teacher would be fired if her lectures were as unpredictable as the events the news media must investigate. Which is one of the reasons why surveys by the news media have shown repeatedly that most Americans are too ignorant to vote intelligently. Consequently our elections are usually decided by which politician has the best advertising consultant. But no one in the news media seems to care about communicating like a teacher instead of a reporter. Maybe there should a journalism prize for selling the public an annual remedial education course on current events. THE PRIZE COULD BE NAMED AFTER RILYA WILSON. She was a foster care child who was missing for an entire year before anyone noticed. The politicians had ignored the program because the voters had ignored because the news media's reports on the program were ineffecitve. But no one in the news media cares about reporting that is effective. If they did, they would communicate like a teacher by providing an annual remedial education course for their failing students. But again, reporters don't care.
#6 Posted by Stanley Krauter, CJR on Wed 18 Apr 2012 at 02:29 PM
I second John Cox. The most problematic thing about the Pulitzers is the way they often drive coverage away from where we would otherwise be inclined to focus it.
#7 Posted by Phil Kay, CJR on Sun 29 Apr 2012 at 07:57 PM