Comments on: The Pulitzers enter 1994 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/12/the-pulitzers-enter-1994/ by Jeff Jarvis Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:26:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: bill http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/12/the-pulitzers-enter-1994/#comment-47146 bill Sat, 13 May 2006 15:42:45 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/12/the-pulitzers-enter-1994/#comment-47146 At least they are a good harbinger of who should be "frog mrched" into jail, such as Priest and Risen and those who leaked to them. But Priest should not be a surprise with who she is married to. An avowed supporter of Castro and Pol Pot. Im sure she has some wonderful "pillow talk" . At least they are a good harbinger of who should be “frog mrched” into jail, such as Priest and Risen and those who leaked to them. But Priest should not be a surprise with who she is married to. An avowed supporter of Castro and Pol Pot. Im sure she has some wonderful “pillow talk” .

]]> By: talbotg http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/12/the-pulitzers-enter-1994/#comment-46577 talbotg Fri, 12 May 2006 21:34:00 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/12/the-pulitzers-enter-1994/#comment-46577 ...the Pulitizers are as fair & unbiased as the Hollywood Oscars... and likewise serve only a select 'insider' crowd -- not the public. No new 'improved-version' is necessary -- just get rid of them entirely. …the Pulitizers are as fair & unbiased as the Hollywood Oscars… and likewise serve only a select ‘insider’ crowd — not the public.

No new ‘improved-version’ is necessary — just get rid of them entirely.

]]> By: ZF http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/05/12/the-pulitzers-enter-1994/#comment-46466 ZF Fri, 12 May 2006 16:43:51 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/05/12/the-pulitzers-enter-1994/#comment-46466 There is a (good) reason nobody is likely to fund this sort of thing. It has become abundantly clear that no matter what the funder's objectives or intructions were, they get taken over within just a few years by mutually supporting, left-leaning guild-thinkers, who use the money and the prestige to pursue their own, often politically activist, agendas. The Pulitzers are just one prominent example. There is a (good) reason nobody is likely to fund this sort of thing.

It has become abundantly clear that no matter what the funder’s objectives or intructions were, they get taken over within just a few years by mutually supporting, left-leaning guild-thinkers, who use the money and the prestige to pursue their own, often politically activist, agendas. The Pulitzers are just one prominent example.

]]>