Perhaps a pinch of Pulitzer perspective...
(no message)
Link: The Pulitzer Prize is becoming legacy media's toxic feedback loop
Replies to: Perhaps a pinch of Pulitzer perspective...
The NYT had no problem agreeing that Mr. Orenthal Simson should return his Heisman back in 2006.
(no message)
Guess they would have been OK with it...had he only butchered the truth.
(no message)
Sounds to me like a lot of 'sour grapes' and envy on the Examiner's part...aside from the fact that
it is an avowed far right conservative publication that has a less than stellar CV...from the Wiki overview....
---------------------
The Examiner has been described as and is widely regarded as conservative.[21] When Anschutz first started the Examiner in its daily newspaper format, he envisioned creating a competitor to The Washington Post with a conservative editorial line. According to Politico: "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz's instructions were explicit – he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee."[3]
--------------------
btw, Pulitzers are given to a wide range of publications all over the country...not just the NYT and WaPo (see link below)...maybe the Washington Examiner should just "Up It's Game" and stop whining.
https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-year
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner
I don't think you can attack a source by citing Wikipedia.
Any thoughts on the actual facts of the story? That the legacy media is routinely wrong and never held accountable. I know the pursuit of truth and honesty is paramount to you. Are you not therefore justifiably concerned that you might not be getting the correct story? You regularly decry the inaccuracies of Fox News. Do you have similar issues here? Or are your grievances situational?
Also let me know when you find a good church that will preach truth to you.
LOL...if you read the Wikipedia post you'll notice that there are 36 References to other sources
that back up the commentary...think before your post.
Just for fun...check out Ref. #19 to see what sort of operation the Washington Examiner is.
So no thoughts on inaccuracies by the legacy media?
Just attack the source?
Link: Just for fun. No. 19. A high end tabloid. As described by the editor
Just in case you failed to read the subject matter in Ref: #19, the link is attached...the Examiner
published an Op-Ed that ended up being fictitious...not quite up to Pulitzer standards IMO and they are probably still smarting from that fail...oh, it was the Daily Beast that called them out...imagine that.
As for the DB, the Wiki page on that publication (which you seem to trust now) they've had a couple of staffers plagiarize material...and gotten fired for it...shows standards being upheld by the DB...but no totally false articles...like the Examiner.
Bottom line...the Examiner is in no position to be criticizing the Pulitzer awards.
Link: https://www.thedailybeast.com/right-wing-media-outlets-duped-by-a-middle-east-propaganda-campaign
I don't trust it now. That's the point Tyrone. You'll accept wiki for WE but not DB.
But again, this is all beside the point. The legacy media is failing us. But it's not important to you because you like the tales they tell you. But you've chosen to intentionally sidetrack the convo to deflect from the whole point. Your MO.
Ty's family pullitzer board member wrote the wiki.
My favorite was when he linked Wiki and when I went to the link it said it was edited a few minutes ago.
Even MSM now acknowledges the political agenda of the award and its disregard of factuality.
(no message)
So you can’t get one anymore if your half black and win an election?
(no message)
That's the Nobel Prize.You have to lie about conservatives in a lib paper for a Pulitzer.
(no message)