Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Rescind the 2017 Pulitzer Given to the NYT and WaPo

 

If the Senate GOP’s belated investigations into the Russiagate abuse of power are to be useful, they might want to shift gears and instead focus on who revealed what to which reporters. Reporters should not be expected to reveal sources but there is no bar against compelling a source to reveal to whom and what he or she divulged to reporters.

The staffs of the Washington Post and New York Times shared the 2017 Pulitzer of National reporting for their coverage of the bogus Russian interference/conspiracy charges leveled against Trump. They produced multiple stories that collectively contained not the slightest indication that this attack was done entirely in bad faith by the very people they likely relied upon as their principal sources.

The biggest political story of the decade was an astonishingly brazen collective attempt to undo the 2016 election or, at a minimum, cripple the incoming new administration. We now know with certainty that people in very high places abused their authority, lied about what they knew and when they knew it and tried to convince the American people, Congress and FISA courts that the duly elected President of the United States had been compromised by a foreign power. The vicious and unduly long-lasting Mueller probe was part and parcel of that effort.

The supposedly top professionals at two formerly highly respected newspapers not only missed the real story but apparently knowingly served the purposes of the perpetrators of the fraud. And for that, they were collectively awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

We are entitled to know what they were fed and when. We deserve to know what they did or did not do to verify that garbage. We need to know when or if any of them realized that something untoward was going on. In short, to what extent were they knowing participants in the fraud or were they all so blindingly stupid that they missed the real story about abuse of power and process.

It would also be interesting to know which of these reporters the conspirators regarded as the easiest mark, the one most likely to run with whatever was fed. My suspicion is that it would be the WaPo’s Ellen Nakashima based on what was hinted in released text messages.

In any event, it’s time to undo this award, to demand that it be rescinded or returned. Or at least put a big asterisk on the web page.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 17 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Barfly Member

    What is the word for a statement whose sense lies in the open, anodyne, agreed-upon social fiction, yet is made irrelevant by the obvious truth? 

    In 1932, Columbia awarded a Pulitzer Prize to the liar Walter Duranty in recognition of his effective propaganda on their behalf. The NYT and Columbia University may mutually praise the product of each other’s noble hindquarters until they expire – every Pulitzer Prize will still hang like a scent bag of stale dung from the neck of its recipient.

    • #1
    • August 14, 2020, at 1:40 PM PDT
    • 10 likes
  2. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    Old Bathos: 2017 Pulitzer

    Now a farce. Same with Nobel Peace prize. These are things to be mocked.

    Some rightwing news group should hand out awards for fake news. Maybe the “Putz Leader” award.

    “And the 2017 Putz Leader Prize goes to the NYT for propaganda relating to the Russian Hoax”.
    “And the 2019 Putz Leader Prize goes to the NYT for propaganda relating to the 1619 Hoax”.

    • #2
    • August 14, 2020, at 2:03 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  3. Hoyacon Member

    So another example that journalism is the first rough draft of history.

    Too bad they give awards for rough drafts.

    • #3
    • August 14, 2020, at 3:33 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  4. Hugh Member

    They are all pretty frumpy looking.

    • #4
    • August 14, 2020, at 3:41 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  5. Dr. Bastiat Member

    Hugh (View Comment):

    They are all pretty frumpy looking.

    Not as diverse group as I was expecting.

    Ha! Just kidding!

    • #5
    • August 14, 2020, at 4:03 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  6. Hoyacon Member

    Maggie Haberman, stage left.

    Joel Benenson, Clinton Chief Campaign Strategist, via email (per Podesta DNC hack):

    “We have a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman [at Politico] over the last year. We have had her tee up stories before and never been disappointed.While we should have a larger conversation in the near future about a broader strategy for reengaging the beat press that covers HRC, for this we think we can achieve our objective and do the most shaping by going to Maggie. “

    • #6
    • August 14, 2020, at 4:14 PM PDT
    • 8 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  7. CarolJoy, Thread Hijacker Coolidge

    On the other hand, these two stinky excuses for journalism may have gotten a Pulitzer for their crappy reporting, but their candidate did not get the White House.

    On account of that I am at peace.

    • #7
    • August 14, 2020, at 4:32 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  8. Songwriter Inactive
    SongwriterJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    So if some enterprising journalist (an actual journalist, mind you) were to dig up the truth and write a brilliant expose` about how the NYT and WaPo screwed up, and how the Pulitizer organization either bought the lies or colluded with them, and that journalist then wrote the most brilliant piece on the sad state of journalism today — would said journalist get a Pulitzer for that? Maybe in the Twilight Zone?

    (Edited to correct my poor editing.)

    • #8
    • August 15, 2020, at 7:12 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  9. Charlotte Member
    CharlotteJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Why does Maggie Haberman look like she’s going to punch someone?

    • #9
    • August 15, 2020, at 9:24 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  10. Charlotte Member
    CharlotteJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Hugh (View Comment):

    They are all pretty frumpy looking.

    Not as diverse group as I was expecting.

    Ha! Just kidding!

    Heh. I was thinking the same thing. Thank goodness that Asian lady was on the team!

    • #10
    • August 15, 2020, at 9:25 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  11. Flicker Coolidge

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Why does Maggie Haberman look like she’s going to punch someone?

    Resting B**ch Face?

    • #11
    • August 15, 2020, at 1:03 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  12. Cow Girl Thatcher

    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret (View Comment):

    On the other hand, these two stinky excuses for journalism may have gotten a Pulitzer for their crappy reporting, but their candidate did not get the White House.

    On account of that I am at peace.

    Yes.

    Songwriter (View Comment):

    So if some enterprising journalist (an actual journalist, mind you) dig up the truth and write a brilliant expose` about how the NYT and WaPo screwing up, and how the Pulitizer organization either bought the lies or colluded with them, and that journalist then wrote the most brilliant piece on the sad state of journalism today — would said journalist get a Pulitzer for that? Maybe in the Twilight Zone?

    Where would it get published? Who would talk about it?

    • #12
    • August 15, 2020, at 1:48 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  13. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil FawltyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Mollie.

    • #13
    • August 15, 2020, at 2:31 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  14. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil FawltyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    With Tom Hamburger as hair to the role of Joe Biden.

    • #14
    • August 15, 2020, at 3:54 PM PDT
    • Like
  15. Full Size Tabby Member

    I doubt the Pulitzer organization will rescind the prizes, but somebody within that organization must realize that the organization and the organization’s awards are rapidly losing value in the eyes of the public. “Pulitzer price winning . . . ” no longer holds the sway with the public as it did in the past, now that it has become clear to so many of us how politicized the award process has become (not just the news prize). Same with the Nobel prizes. 

    • #15
    • August 16, 2020, at 6:02 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  16. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    I doubt the Pulitzer organization will rescind the prizes, but somebody within that organization must realize that the organization and the organization’s awards are rapidly losing value in the eyes of the public. “Pulitzer price winning . . . ” no longer holds the sway with the public as it did in the past, now that it has become clear to so many of us how politicized the award process has become (not just the news prize). Same with the Nobel prizes.

    Wish you were right but I doubt it. They assume that (a) signaling /membership games within their circle is all that really matters and (b) who cares what the rubes think. This award was for expressly abandoning professionalism to support a corrupt effort to destroy Donald Trump. The people in that picture are not reporters. 

    • #16
    • August 16, 2020, at 6:55 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  17. MiMac Thatcher

    Just rename the pulitzer prize for journalism the Walter Duranty-Janet Cooke award and get it over with. Rename the Nobel peace prize the Obama-Menchu Award. What shall we rename after Margaret Mead?

    • #17
    • August 16, 2020, at 5:11 PM PDT
    • 2 likes