Skip to comments.
Pulitzer Prize board begins review of Duranty's award (more bad publicity for the New York Times)
The Ukrainian Weekly ^
| 5/25/03
| Andrew Nynka
Posted on 06/01/2003 6:56:43 PM PDT by DPB101
PARSIPPANY, N.J. - In response to an international campaign, The Pulitzer Prize Board has begun an "appropriate and serious review" of the award given to Walter Duranty of The New York Times, an administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes said on May 20.
The board's administrator said in a telephone interview that the review began as a result of the thousands of letters and e-mails the board received in early May. A confidential review by the 18-member Pulitzer Prize Board is intended to seriously consider all relevant information regarding Mr. Duranty's award, said Sig Gissler, administrator for the Pulitzer Prizes.
"There are no written procedures regarding prize revocation. There are no standards or precedents for revoking the prize. We look at what would be reasonable and analyze the factors that would have to be considered," Mr. Gissler said, referring to the fact that since the creation of the Pulitzer Prizes in 1917 the board has never revoked an award.
The letters, postcards and e-mails the Pulitzer office received since the campaign began this spring have not yet been accurately counted, but Mr. Gissler did say that the number was in the thousands.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anditonlytook71years; commiepropaganda; duranty; falsification; mediafraud; medialies; newyorktimes; nyt; pulitzer; pulitzerprize; schadenfreude; thenewyorktimes; walterduranty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
Petition to strip the New York Times of Duranty's Pulitzer
here
Full Text of Duranty's 1933 report from Moscow Here.
Full Text of dispatches from Moscow by Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge which contradict the New York Times Here.
1
posted on
06/01/2003 6:56:43 PM PDT
by
DPB101
To: DPB101
Thank God this is finally happening.
2
posted on
06/01/2003 7:00:04 PM PDT
by
keithtoo
(Luvya Dubya)
To: DPB101
Obviously the current owners and operators of the Times are not responsible for Duranty's repulsive deeds. However, they ARE responsible for failing to voluntarily give back the price, an non-action which shows that these are repulsive people.
This non-action is in line with the Times' love affair with Castro, which extends to recent times, and with its campaign against the liberation of the people of Iraq. While on domestic policy, the Times is disturbing because these people like to lie, on foreign policy, the Times is morally repulsive.
3
posted on
06/01/2003 7:05:48 PM PDT
by
BCrago66
To: DPB101
It's about 70 years too late, but better late than never. besides, anything that makes the RAT media look like the useful idiots they are is a good thing.
To: DPB101; Timesink
WooHoo!!! About time!
Good news ping, Timesink :-)
5
posted on
06/01/2003 7:11:01 PM PDT
by
Tamzee
( It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. - J. Swift)
To: DPB101
My e-mail to add my name to the petition is on its way! Let's spread this one far and wide, and bombard the Pulitzer board.
6
posted on
06/01/2003 7:14:14 PM PDT
by
CFC__VRWC
To: DPB101
If the freepers are behind this campaign then the LEFT should be very worried because the title "No one left to lie to." will soon be on more books than the one about Klinton.
7
posted on
06/01/2003 7:14:47 PM PDT
by
q_an_a
To: BCrago66; Grampa Dave; dix
The New York Times even lies about how their lies were uncovered. From a
list of Pulitzer prize winners at the paper's website:
1932 Walter Duranty, for reporting of the news from Russia. (Other writers in The Times and elsewhere have discredited this coverage.)
Welsh investigation journalist Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge were telling the truth when the Times was lying. The paper had to know they were printing lies when they printed them. Duranty's notorious 1933 article above was a hit piece on Jones for exposing the crimes of Stalin. In addition, Duranty wasn't the only Times reporter covering for Stalin. Harold Denny followed Duranty at the papers Moscow office and he too denied the genocide which was occurring.
The least the paper could do is acknowledge its slander of Jones and give him and Muggeridge credit instead of saying writers "elsewhere" discredited Duranty's work. Muggeridge lost his job at the Guardian for telling the truth. Jones was killed in China in 1935 and his work has slipped into obscurity.
8
posted on
06/01/2003 7:20:59 PM PDT
by
DPB101
(Support H.R. 1305 to cut the Federal tax on beer in half)
To: BCrago66
current owners and operators of the Times
Actually, the Sulzbergers have been in charge for a very long time, well over a century.
9
posted on
06/01/2003 7:22:12 PM PDT
by
gusopol3
To: DPB101
bump for later
To: DPB101
Mr. Duranty's ghost lives today in the bodies of Peter Arnet, Dan Rather, and all the others who took money or privilege from Saddam not to report the truth about murder, torture, and rape.
11
posted on
06/01/2003 7:34:39 PM PDT
by
Mind-numbed Robot
(Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
To: Temple Owl
ping
12
posted on
06/01/2003 7:37:53 PM PDT
by
Tribune7
To: BCrago66
This issue was actually raised at a shareholder's meeting a year or two ago. Someone asked if they would take Duranty's Pulitzer off of their wall.
The response was an emphatic no. The current crop can't stand to take it down, because that Pulitzer is a long-standing reminder of their constant love affair with murderous revolutionary butchers.
I'll pop a cork on the best bottle of champagne that I can afford, when Duranty's valentine to Stalin come crashing down.
To: Timesink; Liz
14
posted on
06/01/2003 7:50:23 PM PDT
by
martin_fierro
(A v v n c v l v s M a x i m v s)
To: DPB101
The NYT is attempting a simple case of pretend damage control because the Ukrainians' voices are finally being heard. Waiting in the wings are the stories of soviet mass atrocities in many other countries.
15
posted on
06/01/2003 7:51:53 PM PDT
by
HISSKGB
To: HISSKGB
Actually, I don't think the NYT is doing a damn thing. The Times could have given back the prise at any time, or taken some other symbolic action such as taking it off display. It didn't. It is the Pulitzer committee that is belateledly reconsidering.
16
posted on
06/01/2003 7:55:47 PM PDT
by
BCrago66
To: DPB101
Praise God! It's about time! Thanks for posting, DPB.
To: martin_fierro
Love your screen name! I read the Walter Owen translation of Hernandez some time back.
18
posted on
06/01/2003 8:18:33 PM PDT
by
Reverend Bob
(Who always appreciates obscure literary references.)
To: Reverend Bob
Muchas gracias! <|:)~
19
posted on
06/01/2003 8:22:17 PM PDT
by
martin_fierro
(A v v n c v l v s M a x i m v s)
To: martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; Loyalist; =Intervention=; PianoMan; GOPJ; Miss Marple; Tamsey; ...
This is the New York Times Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.
What? They're taking away his fine prize? Oh, I don't care. I'm dead anyway.
20
posted on
06/01/2003 8:35:57 PM PDT
by
Timesink
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson