[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)