I want my Pullet Surprise…
The institution of American journalism offers many prizes. And I think this detracts from what it is journalism is supposed to do, among other things: offer citizens the information they need to make civic life work. The open secret of journalistic practice is that reporters write for each other and the judges. I suppose I’d be a lot more comfortable about these contests if they were judged with the help of news councils or other collections of interested citizens (Note to Sisyphus: I’ve come around on the whole news council thing).
Journalists have two primary loyalties: 1) to the facts, and 2) to the people. Contests and prizes judged by peers do not, in my opinion, reflect the ethic and ethos of these loyalties.
That said, I’m happy about two particular winners of the Pulitzer Prize this year: Nicholas Kristof for his commentaries about the Darfur genocide and the New Orleans Times-Picayune and Biloxi Sun for their coverage of Katrina.
Among the other winners, I cannot find a trivial story or news event. But I wonder what coverage citizens would choose as worthy of a Pulitzer. I can’t help but suppose that there would be significant differences between what the users of news and the suppliers of news consider worthy of praise.
I do not automatically suppose citizens would get it “right,” whatever that means. Would the average Joe think Kristof’s mighty rants, pushing the evil pie of Darfur into America’s collective face, a winner? I don’t know. But somehow I feel certain that the coverage of Katrina would have still won–being a potent glocal combination of local suffering and global impact. And let’s not forget the interactivity of the Times-Picayune’s coverage.
re: But I wonder what coverage citizens would choose as worthy of a Pulitzer.
I wonder if there couldn’t be a “People’s Pulitzer“?
Nah …