Panel Won't Pull N.Y. Times 1932 Pulitzer

AP via Lycos.com ^ | 11/21/2003

[publius1]

Rather sounds like keeping the prize with the Times is more important to the committee than to the newspaper--either that, or the committee members see no difference between Duranty's coverage and their own views on the matter of the Soviets.

[Clara Lou]

A pathetic attempt to save the dignity and reputation of the NYT and the Pulitizer, not necessarily in that order.

[Cdnexpat]

"This is a good thing, we can now continue to point this out as a reason not to put much weight on the Pulitzer Prize and that you shouldn't believe everything in the NYT."


I am in complete agreement. I think this is a good thing. They have a problem and they chose not to deal with it. Every year that goes by that they don't deal with the problem, they lose more credibility. The day will come that these left-over prizes will be worthless in the mainstream. Now if they acted to restore dignity to the prize that would have been a problem.

[Let's Roll]

Of course not the recipient was pro papaJoe.

[MEG33]

He was a useful idiot of Stalin's at the least..a propagandist in the employ of the Soviets by some accounts.

[stop_fascism]

Moral cowardice from the Pulitzer committee. What a surprise. For the record, here's theri weasel words:

"After more than six months of study and deliberation, the Pulitzer Prize Board has decided it will not revoke the foreign reporting prize awarded in 1932 to Walter Duranty of The New York Times.

In recent months, much attention has been paid to Mr. Duranty's dispatches regarding the famine in the Soviet Union in 1932-1933, which have been criticized as gravely defective. However, a Pulitzer Prize for reporting is awarded not for the author's body of work or for the author's character but for the specific pieces entered in the competition. Therefore, the Board focused its attention on the 13 articles that actually won the prize, articles written and published during 1931. [A complete list of the articles, with dates and headlines, is attached.]

In its review of the 13 articles, the Board determined that Mr. Duranty's1931 work, measured by today's standards for foreign reporting, falls seriously short. In that regard, the Board's view is similar to that of The New York Times itself and of some scholars who have examined his 1931 reports. However, the Board concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case. Revoking a prize 71 years after it was awarded under different circumstances, when all principals are dead and unable to respond, would be a momentous step and therefore would have to rise to that threshold.

The famine of 1932-1933 was horrific and has not received the international attention it deserves. By its decision, the Board in no way wishes to diminish the gravity of that loss. The Board extends its sympathy to Ukrainians and others in the United States and throughout the world who still mourn the suffering and deaths brought on by Josef Stalin."

[Paulus Invictus]

No sign of deliberate deception? Huh! They have to be kidding! What dolts! Almost as bad as those idiots at NYT.

[MEG33]

At least they throw a bone.Of course I have read articles that say he admitted in private what he denied in print.

[BillF]

New York Times had their own Baghdad Bob long before Baghdad Bob became famous lying for Iraq (and FReeping the NYT).

[mrustow]

Surprise, surprise! One lefty organization refuses to revoke an award to a lefty reporter for a lefty newspaper.

Fine by me. If the committee had revoked the award, the Times would have seen it as a form of absolution for the Jayson Blair scandal. Now, they get to keep the tainted award forever, which means that the Times will be forever tainted by it!

[mrustow]

This is truly hilarious. If there was no deliberate deception, then BY DEFINITION there was gross ignorance and a complete failure of the primary task of journalism, INVESTIGATING AND REPORTING THE FACTS.

Yup!

'Since Mr. Duranty wasn't deliberately deceptive, but only dangerously incompetent, we are not revoking his award for journalistic excellence.'

See also #30.

[gcruse]

Another take on Pulitzers....

In 1930, Sinclair Lewis became the first American author to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. The award reflected his ground-breaking work in the 1920s on books such as Main Street, Babbitt, and Arrowsmith. He was also awarded the Pulitzer Prize for 'Arrowsmith', but declined it because he believed that the Pulitzer was meant for books that celebrated American wholesomeness and his novels, which were quite critical, should not be awarded the prize.

[Alberta's Child]

Disgraceful New York Times Pulitzer bump.

[nopardons]

Yes, the prize is now so damaged, that it IS worthless.

What I'd like, is for the Pulitzers, en mass, complain. Unfortunately, they have little to no sway with the committee, so that's not going to happen.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Disgraceful New York Times Pulitzer bump.

Yep. It's OK to go after the Nazis but not after the commies. It's some kind of brotherhood thingy.

[Alberta's Child]

Go figure.

Malcolm Muggeridge was a similar Marxist reporter in the USSR at the time (for a British newspaper, I think) -- he may have even known Duranty.

But Muggeridge reported honest stories about what he saw in the Ukraine in the 1920s and 1930s. When he got back to Britain, he was so appalled at the way his stories had been doctored by his newspapers to hide the truth about the Soviets that he became a very conservative writer.

[Victoria Delsoul]

I guess, people who were there know better than the ones who were never there. LOL! That's a tagline for you.

[Alberta's Child]

LOL. I'll keep that quote in mind!

[Victoria Delsoul]

BTW AC, I found the song you like….

click on the graphic

[Alberta's Child]

Oh, Victoria -- You just made my weekend!

(Note: If you click on the graphic the song may not play -- I had to save it on my hard drive)

:-)

:-)

:-)

:-)