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

[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.

[headsonpikes]

Thanks for your hard work and GREAT links!

I'm glad that the Ukrainians have never let this go.

And folks like yourself, either.

;^)

[Grampa Dave]

The NY Slimes has been lying to us for 7 decades.

They have shielded the mass murderers of the Communists for 7 decades.

They still side with Castro and other communists dictators and leaders in the world.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for all of your great documentation re the trail of blood left by the NY Slimes for at least 7 decades.

I would make one suggestion. That you store these article in their entire format on another server.

In the summer of 2002, I has a lot of very damaging data on the envirals in Oregon and California and other states how their goals/actions had create tinder boxes in the forests of Oregon and California. When the fires really broke loose, they just erased a lot of that data from their websites. Google and other searches cited the erased/removed data. So it was lost.

I believe that Free Republic will now allow monthly donors to store data on FR's server for free. You can ask John Robinson about this and how to do it.

We have seen the same disappearance of great political cartoons that really $crew the lefties. So Meeknming now stores these great cartoons on his on server.

[SteveH]

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.

From http://www.pulitzer.org/Resources/resources.html:

Contact Information
(please check our FAQ page first)

The Pulitzer Prizes
Columbia University
709 Journalism Building
2950 Broadway
New York, NY  USA 10027

Voice: (212) 854-3841
Fax: (212) 854-3342
Email: pulitzer@www.pulitzer.org

[MEG33]

I'm looking forward to reading.Thanks for the ping.Great links!

[MEG33]

Thanks for the link.

[MeekOneGOP]

[backhoe]

You betcha!

Regarding atrocities?

That Bloody Century Pass'd- "We have nothing to fear but Governments Themselves..."

[Temple Owl]

The Pulitzer judges are as biased as the New York Times. The are a lot of prizes awarded that never should have been.

[DPB101]

We simply must be as merciless as they are. The Left that demands the taking down of statues of historical figures they despise, the changing of names of buildings, the deconstruction of everything, the re-examination of all of the country's heroes, should have to pay pennance for its Stalinists, its useful idiots, its rank liars.

Exactly. Blair is just an opening, meaningless in the bigger picture. We have 70 years of New York Times lies to examine. The papers of many of the players, such as James B. (Scotty) Reston, are now archived at various universities. There is a gold mine of information waiting to be unearthed.

Harrison Salisbury won a Pultizer in 1955. Mona Charon writes in Useful Idiots--How Liberals Got It Wrong In The Cold War And Still Blame America First

Harrison Salisbury, a New York Times columnist, traveled to North Vietnam in late 1966 and early 1967 and reported that the U.S. was deliberately targeting the civilian population. The effects of those reports, appearing in the nation's most prestigious and influential newspaper, cannot be overstated. Yet as Guenter Lewy reported in his book America in Vietnam;

Only after the articles appeared did a small number of persons learn that Salisbury, in effect, had given the authority of his byline to unverified Communist propaganda and that the New York Times had printed this information as though Salisbury had established it himself with his own on-the-scene reporting . . .The dispatches dealing with the bombing of the city of Nam Dinh had borrowed extensively from a North Vietnamese propaganda pamphlet, Report on U.S. War Crimes in Nam-Dinh City . . .

The way the Times uses its alleged impartially to push a left wing view is illustrated by a debate at the Harvard Law School forum on November 6, 1946.

David Dallin, a Russian who fled the Soviet Union in 1922, argued that the Soviets were expansionist and gearing up their military for a conflict with the west.

Arthur Upham Pope, biographer of Litvinoff, argued the Soviets military posture was defensive.

Salisbury's pretense was to be a neutral third pary. He gave an analyse of the Soviet economy (based on his reporting on the Red Army's march to Berlin), said the Soviets were in no condition to face another war and their military buildup was based on a fear of the U.S.

Salisbury knew better. He was aware the U.S. had demobilized after WWII while the Soviets had increased the power of their military.

[HISSKGB]

These are great posts!

I see that Scotty Reston wrote Nixon was bad and Alger Hiss was good. The NYT's writers and owners have a long history of backing communists who are against the United States. Salisbury defended Kruschev as being a man of peace and also boosted Ilya Ehrenburg who celibrated Stalin's mass murders.

[ozzymandus]

Salisbury also wrote a book of glowing praise for the Red Army in WW2, even applauding them for mass murders of German prisoners.

[DPB101]

Salisbury described Ehrenburg as a "famous Russian iconoclast and critic" and wished he were alive to read the biography, "Tangled Loyalities", of him by Joshua Rubenstein. Salisbury knew what the Red Army did on its march into Germany and that Ehrenburg encouraged crimes against women and children .

Ehrenburg was no "iconoclast". During the Moscow show trials, Radek, Bukharin,Babel and Meyerhold all implicated him in their alleged "Trotskyite" plot to overthrow Stalin. Rather than execute him as he did the others, Stalin saw to it that Ehrenburg got a press pass to their trials. After the trails, Stalin allowed Ehrenberg to travel abroad to continue to spread Soviet propaganda.

[HISSKGB]

The NYT's Salisbury and other pinko reds in this country are still trying to whitewash the crimes of Ilya Ehrenburg by saying he only supported Stalin out of fear for his life.

As Stalinist propagandist and spy for the NKGB, Ehrenburg lived in Paris from 1925 to 1945. This was far from being under Stalin's thumb. In 1942 and 1948 Ehrenburg received the Stalin Prize and in 1952, the Lenin Peace Prize. All the while he rejoiced in Stalin's killings.

[DPB101]

Always some excuse for communists by the Times. They were idealists, they had "tangled loyalities", they this, they that. What a shame it all was.

UPI picked up this article from the Ukranian Weekly last night. Washington Times has it as well. Bet more than a few reporters are calling up the Pulitzer committee today and asking how the investigation into Duranty is going.

[aristeides]

Ehrenburg lived in Paris from 1925 to 1945.

Those dates have to be inaccurate. Ehrenburg was with the Red Army on the Eastern Front during WWII, and wrote notorious bloodthirsty articles in 1944-5 calling on soldiers to kill Germans.

[DPB101]

A bio of Ehrenburg here says he was in Paris from 1925 to 1945 working as an editor for Soviet newspapers. That can't be true, not after the occupation. A chapter from Rubenstein's "Tangled Loyalties" is on line here.

[HISSKGB]

It is interesting to see this problem with the dates. This proves again how shoddy some sources can be. Gone are the days we can blindly believe everything that is written.

The Harvard apologist who wrote the 1996 Tangled Loyalties places Ehrenburg in Paris in 1940. If this is true, surely Ehrenburg could have escaped Stalin had he so wished.
To claim that Ehrenburg was only naively confused about Stalin appears to be a colossal whitewash. The mere fact he was given such major Soviet awards indicates he was not passive in his support for this murderous regime.

These issues are indications that the NYT and others still harbor disloyalty toward our country.

[DPB101]

Somebody protected him. Khrushchev? Ehrenburg did well when Krushchev became First Secretary after the death of Stalin.

[HISSKGB]

Ehrenburg's successful life is an indication he was valued by the important bolsheviks. The question now is why are the NYT and others NY press so busy trying to cover up this man's crimes?

Here is a quote from Ehrenburg about the Ukranian/Russian kulaks: "Not one of them was guilty of anything, but they belonged to class that was guilty of everything". Considering he was referring to the murder of tens of millions of peasants, who in their right mind would defend such a monster?