dagblog - Comments for "Announcement of the 2018 Pulitzer Prize Winners"

Lazy bastards, fuck them -

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 05:24:00 +0000

In reply to I would like to note the very

Lazy bastards, fuck them - this one should have have gone to citizen journalists, not the guys who pronounced "Trump not being investigated by FBI" on their goddamn front page a few days before the election. Or how they took the Bannon-funded "Clinton Cash" and posted it unchecked as "news". Grey old lady's more interested in sipping her rheumatiz medicine and playing the numbers than achieving past greatness. Not sure how WaPo compares post-Bezos. But like Comey, I don't think these people/outlets deserve great praise for talking about problems/disasters they helped create.

One of today's Pulitzer

artappraiser — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 04:03:49 +0000

In reply to Announcement of the 2018 Pulitzer Prize Winners

One of today's Pulitzer winners has already left the paper to run a brewery's social media account. This is at least the 4th Pulitzer winner since 2015 who left for PR by the time they won. PR pays 2x more & has much more job security than journalismhttps://t.co/LUuEMQR6Et
— Mike Rosenberg (@ByRosenberg) April 16, 2018

Great reporting requires

artappraiser — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 02:13:49 +0000

In reply to I would like to note the very

Great reporting requires patience, grit and a willingness to follow a story wherever it leads, whether Alabama or Moscow. Proud of @washingtonpost #Pulitzer winners! And big congrats to the @nytimes, as well! #DemocracyDiesInDarkness https://t.co/MBMWhh1cQR
— Jeff Bezos (@JeffBezos) April 16, 2018

I would like to note the very

artappraiser — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 01:08:02 +0000

In reply to Announcement of the 2018 Pulitzer Prize Winners

I would like to note the very unusual joint award for being on Trump's ass:

National Reporting

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.)