Nikole Hannah-Jones
Posted on 05/04/2020 5:46:39 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Nikole Hannah-Jones won a Pulitzer Prize on Monday for an essay the New York Times corrected substantially after an array of respected academics disputed its grasp on history. That means the Pulitzers bizarrely rewarded inaccurate journalism with journalism’s highest prize.
That Hannah-Jones’s article advanced historical inaccuracies is not a matter of opinion, it was a determination made by her own publication. Tacked onto the piece, which was an introductory article to the Times Magazine’s controversial 1619 Project, is a 36-word Editor’s Note stating, “A passage has been adjusted to make clear that a desire to protect slavery was among the motivations of some of the colonists who fought the Revolutionary War, not among the motivations of all of them.”
That note links to a 500-word “update” from the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Jake Silverstein, who concedes, “We recognize that our original language could be read to suggest that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for all of the colonists. The passage has been changed to make clear that this was a primary motivation for some of the colonists.”
This two-word change is actually an admission of substantial error. (Read why here.) It was also added a long seven months after the article’s publication—during which schools were encouraged to use materials from the project as curriculum—following criticism from a wide variety of prominent historians. Five of those historians, including James McPherson of Princeton and Gordon Wood of Brown, penned a letter to the Times identifying the project’s errors. Here’s how they addressed Hannah-Jones’s essay:
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
They can put it next to their Stalin hagiography.
Liberals don’t care what the truth is unless they agree with it.
They must really hate America to write that garbage.
Nearly 70 years ago, The Columbus Georgia Ledger-Enquirer won a Pulitzer for it’s reporting on crime in Phenix City, Alabama.
The stories eventually led to the cleanup of Phenix City but not without loss of life.
They should be ashamed of themselves for this fraud.
So now the Pulizer prize has joined the Nobel prize in irrelevance.
Never let the truth get in the way of the agenda.
It was never about accuracy. It was always about fictional activism.
Since when has the Pulitzer meant anything outside of the Club of the Left? It is an in house award for Marxist propaganda.
“The New York Times Admitted Was Historically Inaccurate”
A feature, not a bug.
Pulitzer Prize is utterly meaningless to 99% of Americans.
I’m sick of these East coast America hating socialists.
The Pulitzer is a PUTZ!
Nikole Hannah-Jones
Does this mean that the New York Times began life as an ancestor to the Babylon Bee?
As the NYT has admitted this report is not accurate, why isn’t it classified ass fictional.
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 below.]
In its review of the 13 articles, the Board determined that Mr. Duranty's 1931 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.
Walter Duranty's 13 articles in 1931 submitted for 1932 Pulitzer Prize
Eleven-part series in The New York Times
Two articles in The New York Times magazine
There is a Pulitzer Prize for fiction
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.