Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

N.Y. Times agrees 1932 Pulitzer Prize was not deserved

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 04:07 PM
Original message
N.Y. Times agrees 1932 Pulitzer Prize was not deserved
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1003/23pulitzer.html

The executive editor of the New York Times said Wednesday that the paper has no objection if the Pulitzer Prize board wants to revoke an award granted to one of its reporters 71 years ago.

Stepping into a simmering controversy over whether Walter Duranty deserved the prize for his largely favorable reporting on Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, Bill Keller said the paper has notified the board that the Times considers Duranty's work "pretty dreadful ... It was a parroting of propaganda." (emphasis mine)

After a review conducted by a history professor, Keller said, the Times essentially told the board in a letter that "it's up to you to decide whether to take it back. We can't unaward it. Here's our assessment of the guy's work: His work was clearly not prizeworthy."

...more...

the more things change, the more they stay the same
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
thebigidea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. fast forward to 72 years from now...
Stepping into a simmering controversy over whether Thomas Friedman deserved the prize for his largely favorable reporting on George Bush's United States, Chad Skimthorpe said the paper has notified the board that the Times considers Friedman's work "pretty dreadful ... It was a parroting of propaganda." (emphasis mine)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bertrand Donating Member (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Exactly
it was awarded in the context of the era and should stay as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thebigidea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. huh?
propaganda is eternal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bertrand Donating Member (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. That wasnt my point
The award serves as a tool to show what was recognized as great reporting of that era.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thebigidea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. or a barometer of bullshit
whatever floats to the top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bertrand Donating Member (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. The two are not mutually exclusive
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voltaire99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Friedman deserves nothing but ridicule and contempt
The "context of his era" is best described as fawning before the altar of the market and glorifying the myth of US exceptionalism.

Those who swallowed Friedman's wisdom - an outlook that regards investment and invasion with equal blind confidence - look pretty foolish today. First they lost their shirts. Now they're losing their wars.

For that matter, when is the NY Times going to revoke Judith Miller's status as favorite Pentagon stooge? Shouldn't she be too embarrassed after carrying all that water about WMD to publish *anything*?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bertrand Donating Member (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I dont know how this is in response to what i said
could you clarify your point, because i think we are on different pages here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thebigidea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. could you explain your stance on Friedman, then?
that would help. Explain how this dimbulb's endless warmongering touched our hearts.

Once in a lifetime, there comes a man who speaks for a generation: Thomas Friedman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bertrand Donating Member (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I dont think Friedman touched my heart
im sorry if you felt i implied that. What i was saying was that an award like this serves as a historical barometer to show what is percieved by an era to be considered the "best", not what i consider best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thebigidea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. would you consider Friedman the "best"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bertrand Donating Member (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. best is a pretty vague term
lets just say that i dont go to him for insight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thebigidea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. For his colonial British Raj-type philosophy on "liberation"?
or do you read him for his fantastic advocacy of Frenchie-smashing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kainah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Go re-read Bertrand's posts
It seems to me that you are really arguing against yourself. The point is that Friedman might now be given an award -- because we live in times when propaganda is plentiful and praised -- but, in the long light of history, it may be seen for precisely the war-mongering, bush-cheerleading crap that it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thebigidea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. I'm arguing against myself because I hate freedom!
Tom Friedman is doubleplusgood. Tom Friedman makes neoconservative stuff slide down so smooth, I don't even mind I'm being bamboozled by a bozo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. I'm not familiar with Thomas Friedman..
but I had just finished reading this article when I saw your post, Based on your post,I'm guessing Friedman has been a Repub groupie,so I'm wondering if todays op-ed is significant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/opinion/23FRIE.html

<snip>
Free Advice to G.O.P.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: October 23, 2003

Republicans seem to think they don't have to think when it comes to Iraq. They only have to applaud the president and whack the press for not reporting more good news from Baghdad — and everything will be fine. Well, think again.

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. The NY Times review of On The Road was scathing!
That's right, Jack Kerouac's masterpiece was viciously dammed by the paper.

Silent Spring was ripped apart by Time magazine.

No one in the media knows anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thebigidea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. but also praised before the review itself came out
Gilbert Milstein? Sic? Something like that.

I'm a fan of "Doctor Sax" and "Visions of Cody" - great work...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedTX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
15. These BUSHites are really desperate to start their "Cold War"
BS all over again.

Is this to provide a purpose for C.Chevron Rice?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShavedBeard Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. BS?
What exactly about this is BS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
20. Gee..I sure wish MY life was as empty as the Pulitzer board"s...
72 years ago...And, am I correct in assuming that neither Duranty nor any members of the 1932 board are still alive?

Freakin' NYT spends too damn much time reading their archives. Wasn't it the NYT that published a retraction on the day Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon on an editorial from 1903 where they called the Wright Bros. "frauds", stating "The Times regrets the Error"?

Does anyone besides middle-aged university English/History professors who are still virgins give a damn about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
21. Hmmm - jus 'nuther Dummm Canuk Observation - - -



.. ya can't take back a grade 12 diploma just cuz the guy/gal turns out to be stupid

.. ya can't take away a previous prom queens crown from the 30's, 40's 50's whatever cuz by TODAY's standards she ain' purty enuf

.. and so on

..feckadee,

..the world's got enuf problems withoutaking stuff away from people

. . even after they are DEAD !!

. . let's try "giving", not "taking" ?

(never make into Junior's team with THAT attitude - right??)

silly me

:dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC