From Slate: Jack Shafer On The Pulitzer Prize-Who Cares?

Full post here.

Clearly prizes reward merit, but Shafer is highly skeptical of the Pulitzer.  He argues the process needs to be less insular and largely irrelevant to the public:

“There’s no real science or even fairness behind the picking of winners and losers, with the prizes handed out according to a formula composed of one part log-rolling, two parts merit, three parts “we owe him one,” and four parts random distribution.”

Yes, but these are journalists…you can’t expect them to be “scientists.”  You can expect them to be more responsive to the public though, while taking stock of their accomplishments and giving out prizes amongst themselves:

“One way to make the Pulitzers Page One-worthy would be to transform them into an honest annual inventory of journalism…”

“…I’d give awards to the Worst Editorial Page, the Most Compromised Local Paper, the Most Predictable Critic, and the Most Tractable White House Reporter.”


See Also:  From The Seattle Post-Intelligencer Via Sound Politics: Why Did The PI Die?… Who Reads The Newspapers?

Classic Yellow Journalism by malik2moon

Remember The Maine!  by malik2moon

Add to Technorati Favorites

2 thoughts on “From Slate: Jack Shafer On The Pulitzer Prize-Who Cares?

Leave a Reply