NYT's self-nominated Pulitzer winner

Apparently with good reason.

 

Sirs, Madames, Judges,

I worked at a Toronto paper years back and one year the science reporter submitted five stories for the National Newspaper Awards. That year in the paper he had only five bylines.

I self-nominated a mag story years back and won. My editor entered two other stories I wrote they didn't make the finals. (Canadian Mag Awards.) I don't see the NYT guy's self-nom as a big deal win, lose or draw.

YHS, etc

 

I self-nominated quite a bit, but the paper basically told us to. A lot of editors would rather leave it to reports to pick out their best stuff.

I remember one year the paper entered limited entries into a state contest, but we could pay for our own entries. I think I entered something and won first place that didn't make the paper's cut. The story that did make the paper's cut didn't place.

Says more about the subjectiveness of awards than anything else. That's why you have to throw the kitchen sink at the judges.

 

Safe to say that given both Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman have won Pulitzers.

 

When I was living in New Mexico, I should have self-nominated. That would have perhaps allowed me to win one of the Panhandle Press Assn. awards my weasely managing editor -- who "conveniently forgot" to enter any of my stories -- somehow won.

And you're right, Dick. The subjectivity of these awards is mind-boggling. I've entered stories I thought -- and heard from others -- were great pieces ... nothing. Then, I've won for what I thought were mediocre game stories. Go figure.

 

There used to be blacksmith awards too. And the big blacksmith shoppes would pick which of their brawny laborers to nominate, except for a few bold fellows who decided to nominate themselves. Some of them won, for the dandy way they fashioned those horseshoes.

Pulitzers are rapidly gaining that level of irrelevancy. Diminishing pool of candidates working for diminishing pool of newspapers, a rigged game by the big-boy papers, inept management of the program itself. I hear Pulitzer talk these days, my first thought is: "Musty."

F-ing get over your F-ing selves, big-boy journalists/crusaders. The public hates you anyway, awards or not. And much of that is well-deserved. Write more more-honest stories. You're afflicting the afflicted.

 

True that.

As for this situation, when I was a cheerleader in high school... my favorite chant... "Check, check, check out the SCOREBOARD!"

I'm sure the Times editors are in a bad mood partly because they now must brace for a flood of self-nominees next year. Egos, egos, egos. It will probably become something like what's happened in TV: Multiple months and significant manpower have now become dedicated to the awards entry process.

How full of shit we all are!

 

Without us, who will comfort the comfortable?

 

Sarah Ganim and Daniel Gilbert disagree.

 

They've become predictable, kind of like the Oscars. There's always the underdog or two that gets thrown a bone (like the Academy, journos root for stories and pride themselves on being there for the little guy).
I did notice that most of the winners were under 40 - probably more a reflection on most newsrooms these days than anything else.

 

Would anyone have known if the Times hadn't spilled the beans itself?

Also, if I'm the Pulitzer CFO, I'm looking to cash in, because I do think journalists will be more likely to self-nominate next year. Maybe raise the price just a little bit for individual entries?

 

Mmmmmm.... Now I'm picturing Luggy in a cheerleader outfit.




Excuse me, gotta go. I'll be back in a minute.