I have been arguing for sometime that the Pulitzer Prize is bad for journalism, turning the profession into a circle-jerk of mutual self-love. Nick Denton agrees:
But the newspapers’ Pulitzer-chasing is most damaging because it distracts newspapers from their real challenge. Rather than impress colleagues with the seriousness of their reporting, US newspapers need to engage a readership that is drifting off to television and the internet. Pulitzer-winning journalism will win Pulitzers; it won’t save an industry which is experiencing double-digit annual declines in advertising revenue. . . .The respect of peers is a luxury that US newspapers have enjoyed because, for much of the second half of the 20th century, they were local monopolies. They could afford to be respectable, because they didn’t need to pander to readers. In the UK, by contrast, 12 national dailies are in vicious competition. Editors fear the loss of their jobs, not their honor.
It is not as if the New York Times and Washington Post can magically invigorate themselves by eschewing the Pulitzers. America’s vastness, which mitigates against national newspapers and produces smaller local markets which can only support one title, is an unalterable fact. But, while the Washington Post and other winners may celebrate today, they should recognize a harsh truth: the same monopolies which have allowed a public-service mentality to flourish have also left newspapers unprepared for new competition. These Pulitzers are the totem poles of the newspaper industry; beloved relics of former glory.
If the Pulitzers had the future of journalism at heart, they would award innovation.
I think the Denton link is wrong, and you meant this, on Gawker.
That said, I think Denton is the worst possible model to hold up as a critique of the Pulitzers. His sites have become known for their precipitous drop in quality and corresponding drop in readership. Gawker is hardly worth the time it takes to load it and it looks more like Digg every day (Flash Games? Is that what the Wash Post should be in the business of promoting?).
His tech sites are still well read, and it appears that is where he is going to focus, but the quality of reporting on them is about on par with PR Newswire + YouTube + RedBull. If they don’t kill the authors, as the Times would suggest, they do at least kill the level of discourse to assorted 4Chan memes. Not saying there isn’t a place for it, but it’s easily duplicable and utterly declining in value faster than dead tree publications at this rate.
That said, it would be nice if the Pulitzers were expanded to fit the changing times.
*Disclosure: My reporting won a tenth of a Pulitzer, so I’m a bit biased in their favor.
I think it’s safe to say that multimedia played a not insignificant role in Gene Weingarten’s winning story, and he in fact pointed that out in his remarks in the newsroom.
My favorite television program, The Wire, explored this very issue in its 5th and final season. Pulitzer chasing editors overlooked a reporter’s unethical shortcomings to achieve their goal. David Simon, the co-creator worked for the Baltimore Sun and has made several comments regarding this problem with Pulitzer’s. Nice post.
There is nothing stopping the blogosphere from creating their own awards. This can be for any aspect that is felt to be important, from technology to the quality of writing.
What I still see from newspapers is that original, investigative, reporting can alter the political landscape. A good current example is the work by Eric Lichtblau on the warrantless wiretapping story and the uncovering of the Yoo memos and subsequent reversals.
The blogosphere has not yet developed a core of real investigators. It is good at drawing attention to under reported stories (like the one about Trent Lott), but not doing the original digging. Josh Marshall has hired a few researchers and they have done some original work, but his site seems to be the exception so far.
Given all the government secrecy and cronyism of late a vigilant press is needed more than ever. Echoing information found by others may be a useful role for the blogosphere, but it still isn’t enough.
Jeff, on a positive note, Josh Marshall did win the 2007 Polk Award for legal reporting, and you could say that it was about innovation in that he used crowdsourcing to help gather information about the dismissals of US Attorneys across the country in order to connect the dots.
http://www.brooklyn.liu.edu/polk/press/2007.html
Interesting that the Polk Web site doesn’t mention crowdsourcing or give credit to his readers in any way. I picked this up when Lehrer interviewed him on WNYC.
“(Newspapers) could afford to be respectable, because they didn’t need to pander to readers.”
Well-spoke by Mr. Denton. We know where his priorities are. I don’t understand why he would be taken seriously as a spokesmen for what journalism should or shouldn’t be. His sites are mainly fey and gossipy, often pretty damn funny, but no more than diversions. People magazine with links.
More important, why is respectable journalism, in the broader sense, somehow not applicable to web writing? Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t get the point. Wouldn’t it be better all around if the Pulitzer included the web, not for its innovation, but for its reporting?
agreed – even if the award reflected real journalism how does excluding the most read newspaper (guardian) and the fastest growing newspapers in the US (dailymail, huffpost) make any sense in 2007?
Because they don’t have paper versions printed in the US – who cares? How is that a valid criteria in 2007?
So how about this business of Sam Zell filling Tribune Co with Clear Channel folks?
Of course, since Tribune owns a radio or TV station or two itself, not surprising and not directly aimed at the newspaper side. And one hardly thinks that FM radio’s many problems are the answer for the newspaper business’s many other problems.
Still, FM has different issues, to be sure, than the full-of-themselves newspaper biz. It could be interesting to throw a hyper-reactive audience-chasing no fixed principles mindset at the problems of a loftily audience-disconnected full-of-principles-written-in-stone medium like the newspaper. Maybe…
“They could afford to be respectable, because they didn’t need to pander to readers.”
To sum:
1) If they make news that readers want, they’re pandering.
2) The news that readers don’t want is respectable.
3) Respectable news is what reporters want to write (for each other).
What it should be:
1) Giving readers the info they want to know is good reporting.
2) Readers are repected, thus their wants are respectable.
3) The drivel written for each other belongs in lit non-fit grad school programs, not the news.
[...] Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine: “…the Pulitzer Prize is bad for journalism, turning the profession into a circle-jerk of mutual self-l… [...]
[...] was reading a post by Jeff Jarvis and it hit a note on my subconscious. This is a topic I’ve been struggling about for the past [...]
[...] Live the Pulitzer Jump to Comments I’d like to offer a rejoinder to Jeff Jarvis, who called the Pulitzer Prizes a “circle-jerk of mutual self-love” among journalists and a [...]