All errors should be reported to

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

The Poo-litzers

The Pulitzers awarded this year were by and large a joke in light of the Mueller Report clearing President Donald John Trump.

Not only did the Pulitzer committee refuse to rescind last year's awards to the New York Times and Washington Post (which dominate the committee membership) for their pushing of the false narrative of Russian Collusion, but the committee doubled down on anti-Donald John Trump Fake News.

But the awards have rewarded disinformation for some time. I cite eight examples.

The first is the 2016 Breaking News Reporting award to the Los Angeles Times Staff "For exceptional reporting, including both local and global perspectives, on the shooting in San Bernardino and the terror investigation that followed."

The committee reviewed 10 stories over 15 days.

Not a single headline said Muslim.

How in the heck do you do award-winning coverage of a mass murder without mentioning the motive?

My second example is the 2017 National Reporting award to David A. Fahrenthold of the Washington Post "For persistent reporting that created a model for transparent journalism in political campaign coverage while casting doubt on Donald Trump’s assertions of generosity toward charities."

Included in the entry was Fahrenthold breaking the Billy Bush tape story.

The stories were misleading as Fahrenthold tried to depict a charity set up by The Donald to distribute his earnings as being the same as Hillary's fake charity that collected millions from foreign countries while she was secretary of state.

This was click bait journalism. For example, the Washington Post reported on March 4, 2016, that "Half of money Trump raised for vets reached charities."

But it took time to vet the veterans groups. Eventually, all the money raised had been disbursed. The headline begrudgingly said in May 25, "Four months later, Trump says he gave to veterans."

Trump says.

The earlier headline did not attribute its claim to anyone.

My third example is the 2017 Breaking News Photography award to Daniel Berehulak, freelance photographer, "For powerful storytelling through images published in The New York Times showing the callous disregard for human life in the Philippines brought about by a government assault on drug dealers and users. (Moved into this category from Feature Photography by the nominating jury.)"

Moving the award from its original category is common among awards to the New York Times and the Washington Post entries.

I looked at the photos again and again and I saw powerful images of what looked to be homeless people that could easily be seen in Los Angeles. The citation by the committee shows a bias.

Readers can see for themselves.

My fourth example is the 2017 Investigative Reporting award to the staff of the Washington Post "For purposeful and relentless reporting that changed the course of a Senate race in Alabama by revealing a candidate’s alleged past sexual harassment of teenage girls and subsequent efforts to undermine the journalism that exposed it."

The allegations were false and cost the Republican nominee, Judge Roy More, the election and his reputation as none of the alleged victims has followed up on threats to sue him.

The lesson is simple: push Democrat talking points and win big prizes!

My fifth example is 2018 National Reporting award to the staffs of the New York Times and the Washington Post "For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)"

What did I say about category shifting? Two categories for them, one category for everyone else.

There was no Russian Collusion and there was no public service in aiding, abetting, and promoting an attempted coup against a duly elected president.

At least one of the 20 stories entered proved to be false, including an August 1, 2017, Washington Post story, "Trump crafted son’s statement on Russian contact."

Tom Kuntz had a far better takedown of this award entitled, "Opinion: Why the Trump-Russia Pulitzer Was No Prize."

Kuntz helped edit the New York Times's Pulitzer Prize submissions in several years of his 28-year tenure as an editor at the paper ending in 2016.

My sixth example is the 2019 Explanatory Reporting award to David Barstow, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner of the New York Times "For an exhaustive 18-month investigation of President Donald Trump’s finances that debunked his claims of self-made wealth and revealed a business empire riddled with tax dodges. (Moved by the Board from the Investigative Reporting category, where it was also entered.)"

Again, a change in categories.

The award is based on Fake News that Donald Trump made "claims of self-made wealth." He never claimed to be poor. As for "tax dodges," it was all legal.

For example, taking a deduction for a dependent was not a tax dodge. It is following the law.

The Sulzberger family has handed down a New York Times empire, has it not?

My seventh example is the 2019 National Reporting award to the staff of the Wall Street Journal "For uncovering President Trump’s secret payoffs to two women during his campaign who claimed to have had affairs with him, and the web of supporters who facilitated the transactions, triggering criminal inquiries and calls for impeachment."

The stories did not "trigger criminal inquiries and calls for impeachment." The stories were provided cover for those actions. Since when are out-of-court settlements "secret payoffs"?

If that is now the standard, then by all means, disclose all of News Corporation's settlements over the decades.

My final example is the 2017 Commentary award to Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal "For rising to the moment with beautifully rendered columns that connected readers to the shared virtues of Americans during one of the nation’s most divisive political campaigns."

I was reluctant to include this one as my dispute is not with her columns, which are good, but the way the award was billed. The entries were not about the "divisive political campaigns" were all about Donald Trump, including an October 22, 2016, column, "Imagine a Sane Donald Trump."

She proved there is no such thing as bad publicity.

I wonder why Dahleen Glanton of Chicago Tribune was the runner-up and not the winner? Her works were topped by a September 16, 2016, column, "Deplorables have the right to be deplorable in U.S."

My experience in both receiving awards for columns and judging works for awards is that the judges pick the one they agree with most. Sorry Glanton, but the committee were With Her.

Donald John Trump announced for the presidency on June 16, 2015. Since then a sinking journalism trade hit rock bottom. With these awards, the Pulitzer committee shows it is perfectly content with that.


  1. "How in the heck do you do award-winning coverage of a mass murder without mentioning the motive?"

    That's why they got it; they followed the party line and practice.

  2. Joe Poo-litzer was a tabloid hack.

  3. The Pulitzer is like the Hollywood and music awards - an industry fawning over themselves and deciding who wins the popularity contest. Quality matters not.

  4. Who cares? This is like a bunch of pigs competing to see who smells worse.

  5. The Pulitzers have as much credibility as the Nobel Peace Prize, which is to say, none. Ref Arafat & Obama.

  6. David Barstow & Susanne Craig's reporting was so fake that Mary Trump Barry would rather resign than explain her tax fraud.

    Grifters gotta grift.

    1. LOL

      She is 82 and cannot work as a federal judge as long as her brother is president because of the judicial canons.

      Barstow was the fellow who broke the storty that Trump did not pay taxes the year he lost nearly a billion dollars.

      Sadly, that scoop received no Poo-litzer.

  7. Given the goals of modern news reporting, why wouldn't effective propaganda and narrative reinforcement be highly rewarded?

    Narrator: It is.

  8. Now the Pulitzer commission is a feces-for-brains right-sided-brain-dead-liberal finger-puppet stooge.

    Can we find a sewer big enough for them?

  9. I read sinking journalism as stinking journalism, I don't think that I need to get my eyes checked.

  10. Liars congratulating other liars for telling the best lies.