I got a million of 'em!"
Inka-Dinka-Do
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.
Actually no, its the same family, running it with the same policy's and core system. If my father does a wrong with the family business, and I take over, and know of it, and it can be rectified, then I have an obligation to do so. They made no attempt to rectify the error and in fact, condoned it, by still crediting the author with the pulitizer prize and by leaving it hanging to this day as a reminder and a motivation for there authors.
First, while we colloquially say the NYT is owned by the same family, actually and legally the ownership has changed, because different individuals own the majority of NYT stock. The stock is not still in the dead guy's estate.
Second, this does not matter so much, because we both agree that the current owners are morally culpable for failing to correct the moral failing of thier predecessors. So I don't see a substantive difference (look to my 1st post, where I say the same thing.)
Funny you mention him. The New York Times helped make Arnett.In 1969 James B.(Scotty) Reston bestowed lavish praise on Arnett, calling him "courageous". Many didn't agree and wrote to correct Reston. Here is Reston's reply to one such letter.
Reston himself won a Pulitzer in 1945 for "news and interpretive articles on the Dumbarton Oaks Security Conference."
Like to find those articles. Dumbarton set up the UN. Three Soviet Agents--Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie--were major players at Dumbarton. Did Reston suspect anything was amiss? Or did he praise the three?
Another problematic New York Times Pulitzer is the one awarded to Sydney H. Schanberg in 1976 for his reports on the coverage of the fall of Lon Nol and the rise to power of Pol Pot. Considering what the Khymer Rouge did, Schanberg was off the mark when he wrote:
"It would be tendentious to forecast such abnormal behavior (mass executions) as national policy under a Communist government once the war is over."
Stripping Duranty of the Pulitzer might just be the beginning of a reexamination of many others.
Great news and many thanks for the ping. :-)
So many lies, so much propaganda, and still the N.Y. Times refuses to admit its complicity is so much evil. It's long past due, that they are exposed.
And then the Nobel committee can take back the peace prizes from Arafat and Carter.
Matthews front page New York Times love letter to Fidel is here
Times reporter Harold Denny on Christmas in Moscow at the height of the terror: "Russia tonight is having the gayest celebration since the revolution.... Moscow tonight powerfully reminded a sojourner from the Western world of any town in America on Christmas Eve.... All the worker's clubs are having special entertainment, and in every home friends are gathered around boards groaning with solid and liquid cheer."
Denny's comments on that show trials were that most thought "justice had been done" and just because torture was used to extract confessions " does not necessarily prove that the confessions in essence were untrue."
How nice of Schanberg. Musta thought the murderous Pol Pot would be more, er,
ah, "civilized" after the confidence expressed in him by toe-sucking liberal Schanberg.
These "tolerant and compassionate" liberals are disgusting.
Yes, it would be sweet indeed. Of course, if I weren't a Freeper, I would never even have heard about this - my local paper is a New York Times paper.
The Times, in addition to producing its own version of reality in NYC, controls an enormous number of regional and even small town newspapers. Making changes at the Mother-ship could change things in newspapers all over the country.
Sure made my day. We need also to examine the Pulitzer people for their shady prize-awarding modus operandi.
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.