It was announced yesterday that Lane DeGregory of The St. Petersburg Times won a Pulitzer for her article, "The Girl in the Window." After many years of writing truly engaging, fascinating pieces of investigative, narrative journalism, DeGregory has received the top award in her field.
Which got me thinking, is it the top award in journalism? Should it be?
NPR noted in their article about the top Pulitzer winners this year:
"No Pulitzers were awarded for coverage of the biggest financial crisis since the Depression. And despite a rule change that allowed online-only news organizations to compete for Pulitzers for the first time, none of them won any prizes."
Also, this year the New York Times was awarded with five prizes - including their international reporting of "deepening U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan", and the investigative reporting behind "revealing how networks used military commentators who had ties to the Pentagon or defense contractors.
Now, I wonder, is this so? Did the NYT really start all of these conversations. They seem like dialogue that would have been started by Democracy Now! years ago. I haven't been following the patterns of Pulitzers in years passed, but I am starting to wonder if they are any more credible than Oscars or Academy Awards.
Regardless, I think that Lane DeGregory receiving the award was well-deserved. I'm just now more than ever curious about the credibility behind the Pulitzer awarding process.
No comments:
Post a Comment