[Bonaparte]

Yeah, Gissler, those "semantics" will get ya every time, ya big fat liar.

You know what, DPB? I think the problem is the Pulitzer itself and the creeps who administer it.

[MEG33]

It was never a legitimate excuse to refuse to revoke the Prize.Now we know it was also based on a falsehood.(I say delicately)

[DPB101]

You think the Pulitzer is political? My gosh.

Seriously, I would like to pretend I knew all along but I didn't. A sin of omission rather than commission. Most of my life, when I heard "Pulitzer Prize", I assumed the author was an honest, deserving writer. Never looked into it at all. Now that I have, I rank the prize right below the Order of Lenin or whatever awards Goebbels gave out for writing.

Meg33---a error which will be handy to point out in the future.

I know this: the family of Gareth Jones and the Ukrainians are not going away. This will be an issue forever until the New York Times does the right thing.

Arthur Sulzberger is such an idiot. He could have ended this by quietly returning the Pulitzer. But he wanted to make an issue of it for some rather sick reasons (my paper apologizes for not doing enough during the Holocaust, my paper will not admit there was a Holodomor first).

We will see who wins. My bet is on the families of victims of Duranty and the New York Times.

[HISSKGB]

The Pultizer Prize set up should be scrutinized more thoroughly especially the role of its Administrator. He is the one who is able to vet all incoming prize applications and appoint panels to review the applications he gives them which gives him more control than is benignly portrayed. The Administer is in a powerful position that can assure certain preordained outcomes while pretending otherwise.

Seymour Topping who worked for the NYT for 34 years and served as their Moscow correspondant was the Pulitzer Administrator from 1993 to 2002. Topping refused prior requests to review Duranty's prize