[HN Gopher] 2022 Pulitzer Prizes ___________________________________________________________________ 2022 Pulitzer Prizes Author : hhs Score : 32 points Date : 2022-05-09 20:43 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.pulitzer.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.pulitzer.org) | gautamcgoel wrote: | Really awesome to see Quanta Magazine and Natalie Wolchover win a | Pulitzer for Explanatory Reporting! They do great work. | mabbo wrote: | Seriously! Her writing is brilliant and it's so nice to see her | recognized for it. | colechristensen wrote: | Every single book revolves around an ethnicity issue except one | about poverty. | | This is the kind of thing people are pushing back against, | there's just more to life than exploring identity issues. Not | that they aren't somewhat important, but there are indeed other | things to talk about. | aarestad wrote: | Wouldn't you agree that they're worth talking about _right | now_? | austhrow743 wrote: | Why is _right now_ a time when they're more worth talking | about than any previous time? | cato_the_elder wrote: | No, they have been talked about ad nauseam for the past few | years. | oorza wrote: | Right, because the measure of how much we should talk about | injustice is how much we've talked about injustice, rather | than how much injustice there actually is. Because ignoring | problems is always how to solve them. | bendbro wrote: | Right, because a sarcastic strawman is the best way to | prove a point. | Jon_Lowtek wrote: | No one is making an argument in favor of ignoring one | specific problem. On the contrary, the complaint that | almost all books getting pulitzer prizes are about the | same topic, is not against that topic, but about other | problems being ignored. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | They're worth talking about right now. But they're not the | _only_ thing worth talking about right now. | jimbob45 wrote: | As someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, the Hunter | Biden laptop story represents a far stronger embrace of | journalistic ethics in the face of adversity than any of the | stories that were actually awarded. For a publication to | stand by a story while facing extreme financial repercussions | and censorship is impressive. | jacobolus wrote: | The Hunter Biden laptop story was a fake scandal made up by | political hack "journalists" to (try to) swing an election, | dropped on the electorate with no corroboration and no | expert analysis, handed to them by people directly working | for the president's campaign who had a history of promoting | Russian propaganda. | | The supposed "scandal" is that the candidate's son tried to | set up a meeting between his boss and his father, which | meeting either never happened or was no more than a few | minutes long, and never demonstrated any whiff of | illegality or even unethical behavior by the candidate. | That is hinted at by some (apparently real) emails which | were obtained by an unknown method [but note the company | had been hacked by Russians in the recent past] and then | placed on a hard drive by unknown actors for unknown | reasons, along with a highly implausible (and now | impossible to validate, because the hard drive was handled | so sloppily) story about an abandoned laptop. (This hard | drive eventually found its way to Steve Bannon and Rudy | Giuliani.) Despite there being no serious story here, it | has been repeated ad nauseam by every hack propaganda rag | for the past year and a half to the point that millions of | faithful conspiracy theorists are convinced of its | significance. | | Meanwhile the (now former) president's son in law was | having his bankrupt family business bailed out by oil | sheikhs to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars (and | more recently has been put in charge of a $2 billion | investment fund) as direct payback for altering US | government policy to help those patrons, and nobody | involved in this laptop story batted an eye. What a joke. | burkaman wrote: | Was the link updated? None of the books at the current link | seem like they "revolve around an ethnicity issue", at least | from the short summaries on the page. | jimbob45 wrote: | I think it was. When I clicked earlier, it was only showing | the journalism awards (or maybe my scroll just broke halfway | down? Hard to tell). | joshcryer wrote: | Honestly, it's no wonder The Pile produced models have to be | "bias adjusted." | | Please, pick, at random, any date on that page and you can say | the same thing about any of the subject matters. Here. I just | did it. 2003. Middlesex. Book about a girl that's not a girl. | 1982. Rabbit Is Rich. Book from a series that explores drugs, | identity, religion, this one has alcoholism themes. 1976. | Humboldt's Gift. Story about commodification and culture. | | The whole _point_ of the Pulitzer for books novels and music is | to encourage and highlight the unique stuff. The fact that they | may reflect the current themes of those times should not be | surprising or bothersome. | Bud wrote: | Hard to explain such a tendentious and careless take, | especially when you apparently didn't even take the ten seconds | necessary to check whether you were even right about your basic | premise. | hoofedear wrote: | devindotcom wrote: | cato_the_elder wrote: | @colechristensen is mostly correct, let's look at the | descriptions in the announcement for the first three books | you mentioned. | | The Netanyahus: "historical novel about the ambiguities of | the Jewish-American experience" | | Fat Ham: "grapple[s] with questions of identity, kinship, | responsibility, and honesty" | | Covered with Nigh: "A gripping account of Indigenous justice" | | And for the rest, I think the description you provided hints | that collective identity is an important element of the | books. (except perhaps for "Cuba: An American History" and | "Invisible Child") | 99_00 wrote: | Stories that won in the past. Has anything come of the | investigations into Trump's taxes, criminal inquiries, or | connections with Russian interference? | | 0 out of 3 is not a good record. | | 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. | | 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. | | 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. | hedora wrote: | Arguably, the 2022 Editorial Writing winner came from those | stories, though it's not the outcome any of the involved | authors would want: | | Lisa Falkenberg, Michael Lindenberger, Joe Holley and Luis | Carrasco of the Houston Chronicle | | For a campaign that, with original reporting, revealed voter | suppression tactics, rejected the myth of widespread voter | fraud and argued for sensible voting reforms. | ibejoeb wrote: | I don't see the connection here. What do these have to do with | '22 awards? | jyrkesh wrote: | Can't speak for OP, but it was interesting for me in that it | points to either: | | a) speculative reporting that turned out to have less basis | in reality than was initially thought (to the point that top- | tier award-winning journalism wasn't actually true), or | | b) a disconnect between facts on the ground as reported by | journalists, and our individual, societal, or governmental | inability to effect change based on those facts | | My personal take is that it's probably a combination of the | two. A bunch of anonymous sources cited by the press | throughout Trump's presidency were either never corroborated | by public sources, or were flatly proven to be incorrect as | more facts came out. But there was also a TON of totally | credible, well-sourced journalism in that era that the US | federal and state governments have completely ignored, often | with the support of their constituents who dismiss even the | absolute best reporting as "fake news." | | Looking at the 2022 winners, it's personally disheartening | for me to think how much of what's listed there will just | continue on as the status quo. Though as a counterpoint, it | also looks like there's some wins that were already | corrected, like the Florida battery plant expose that (if I | take the Pulitzer description here at face value) resulted in | new safety measures to protect workers. | phphphphp wrote: | What examples do you have of major award winning journalism | from the Trump years that was proven to be based on lies? | There's certainly been a lack of consequence on some things | (like the tax leaks, which are still part of ongoing court | cases) but I can't think of any major examples (beyond the | Steele dossier) that meet your description. An absence of | major consequence doesn't disprove the validity of the | journalism. | hedora wrote: | Do you have any concrete Trump-era examples of widely | celebrated mainstream reporting that turned out to be | falsified, or credible well-sourced journalism that was | incorrectly categorized as fake news by mainstream news | outlets? | | The only examples I can think of revolve around sloppy | science reporting w.r.t. non-peer-reviewed covid studies, | but the press got the big picture right on that, | eventually. | ibejoeb wrote: | Makes sense. Do pulitzers ever get rescinded when it turns | out the material was bogus? | Bud wrote: | The journalists here, obviously, are not at all responsible for | a failure to prosecute Trump for crimes that he is still quite | obviously guilty of. | | The record here is 3 out of 3. Not zero. | burkaman wrote: | Can you rephrase your question? What came of these | investigations is that a lot of people read them and learned | something, which is the primary goal of most journalists. Some | organizations, like ProPublica, explicitly focus on "impact", | but most do not, and I think impact is just one of many things | the Pulitzer judges consider. | hedora wrote: | Once again, the truth has a liberal bias. | | I wish there was more high quality reporting happening on the | other end of the political spectrum. There used to be, and it | would help the country be less divided. | | Edit: This is an invitation to prove me wrong, by providing links | to well-researched, objective, but conservative news sources. | ibejoeb wrote: | "The Washington Post: For its compellingly told and vividly | presented account of the assault on Washington on January 6, | 2021, providing the public with a thorough and unflinching | understanding of one of the nation's darkest days." | | Indeed. Zero questions remaining. I understand unflinchingly, | whatever that is. | Jonovono wrote: | I wonder how much Bezos paid for that ! | Bud wrote: | WaPo's coverage was indeed excellent. The best that I read | anywhere, overall. Good call by the Pulitzer board. | ibejoeb wrote: | The part where they explained why the capitol police officers | were escorting people into the building was perhaps the most | vividly compelling. | joshcryer wrote: | Here's the video that likely got them the Pulitzer: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibWJO02nNsY | chernevik wrote: | Never forget that Walter Duranty and the NY Times got a Pulitzer | for "reporting" on the Holodomor in Ukraine -- without ever | mentioning the forced famine or deaths of millions. | tdhz77 wrote: | Amazes me that the journalist that are in the Ukraine v Russian | war are just notable mentions. It's their bravery of life and | limb that arguably has lifted Ukraine's chances. | evan_ wrote: | These prizes would have been for works published in 2021. | agency wrote: | Aren't these for things published in 2021? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-09 23:00 UTC)