
2019 Pulitzer Prize Winners - gurupanguji
https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-year/2019
======
danso
Great to see the South Florida Sun-Sentinel win its second Public Service [0]
award (considered the most prestigious of the journalism Pulitzers). Its first
Public Service award -- a 2013 investigation of speeding cops [1] -- is still
one of my favorite examples of database-driven journalism; a combination of
clever public records requests for metadata, and math, to prove something that
technically didn't exist (i.e. cops are usually the deciders of who is
speeding).

Its 2019 series about failures by school and police in the Parkland school
shooting is also excellent. It also features among its public records work an
milestone fuckup by officials in terms of PDF non-redaction [2].

[0] [https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-
category/204](https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/204)

[1] [https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/sun-
sentinel](https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/sun-sentinel)

[2] [https://www.cjr.org/local_news/redaction-sun-
sentinel.php](https://www.cjr.org/local_news/redaction-sun-sentinel.php)

------
rmorey
"A special citation to honor the journalists, staff and editorial board of the
Capital Gazette, Annapolis, Maryland, for their courageous response to the
largest killing of journalists in U.S. history in their newsroom on June 28,
2018, and for demonstrating unflagging commitment to covering the news and
serving their community at a time of unspeakable grief. The citation comes
with a $100,000 bequest by the Pulitzer Board to be used to further the
newspaper’s journalistic mission."

This is great

------
marktangotango
As an aside, I always recommend Pulitzer Prize winning “Soul of a New Machine”
by Kidder to technical audiences. It’s a great read with some cool history
too.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_a_New_Machine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_a_New_Machine)

------
tunesmith
I'm a little surprised that Miami Herald isn't on the list for their Epstein
reporting, maybe they're not eligible until next year.

~~~
RobAtticus
I came across this open letter from Alan Dershowitz, lobbying against their
Pulitzer consideration[1]. I haven't seen a public response from either the
reporter or the Miami Herald, so I'm curious about their views of the points
he brings up.

To be clear, I'm not saying he is accurate. I just don't know enough either
way. He's obviously an interested party to the whole story.

[1] [https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14003/pulitzer-prize-
fake...](https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14003/pulitzer-prize-fake-news)

~~~
DSingularity
Do you think we should trust his narrative? I remember watching the
disingenuous way he debated Chomsky on Israel/Palestine and thinking that he
was totally sleazy

[1] [https://youtu.be/3ux4JU_sbB0](https://youtu.be/3ux4JU_sbB0)

~~~
RobAtticus
I am not sure. Like you, I have seen him engage in disingenuous methods of
debating. However, it does seem he offered 'hard' proof to corroborate his
story, which is why I'm curious to see how the Herald would respond. It seems
we'll find out more about the Epstein affair as there are renewed pushes to
investigate what happened in the plea deal.

~~~
lvs
Dersh argues many things confidently and aggressively that seem perhaps
facially convincing. Or perhaps you simply don't have time or the presence of
mind to present a counterargument in the moment. That's his "strength" as a
lawyer. Don't believe any claim until you see the underlying exculpatory
evidence, which only he claims exists and only he claims is exculpatory. In
this case, he presents none of the evidence. Not one single piece of it. He
only presents what the response of others was upon seeing it. He can pull this
gag on the general public, but in a court one requires discovery.

------
781
One of last year's winner:

> Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post

> _For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest
> that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian
> interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the
> Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual
> administration._

~~~
Bendingo
This perfectly demonstrates the state of US media (and western media in
general). After over 2 years of misinformation, unfounded allegations, and
downright fabrications, the media are now congratulating themselves on a job
well done.

It's clear that they have no intention of abandoning their Russiagate
narrative, despite Mueller's report.

~~~
istjohn
So you've read the report? To my knowledge, the only portion of the 300+ page
report that has so far been published is a a sentence fragment quoted by Trump
appointee Attorney General William Barr in his 4 page summary. Seems a little
premature to conclude we have the whole story.

Also, multiple people close to Trump have been convicted of various crimes as
a result of the past two years of investigation. Even if once the dust settles
Trump stands clean and pure as the driven snow, investigators already have
plenty to show for their work.

~~~
johnnyb9
If the report is so damning otherwise, why is Barr even releasing it?

~~~
CydeWeys
Because Democrats control the House and have subpoena power.

------
gcbw2
How long do they debate for?

Latest piece is from june 2018(or I missed soemthing fresher?)!

~~~
catacombs
The Board met last week and chose the winners on Friday. Winners and finalists
are notified over the weekend. Everyone else is kept in the dark until the
announcement Monday.

------
rmason
As a native Detroiter it was great to see Aretha Franklin receive recognition.
Just sad she couldn't have been awarded it when she could have been alive to
enjoy it.

------
pwinnski
Some amazing reporting listed here, including the runners-up.

------
intuitionist
Interesting that the music prize once again only cites “art music” after
Kendrick Lamar won last year.

------
usaphp
Interesting to see 4 winners with investigations about Trump.

~~~
carrja99
Well, he is the president.

~~~
commandlinefan
I honestly don't follow pulitzer prizes, but sampling a few recent years (in
the past 20), I can't find any where there was ANY award for investigation
against a president (there was one for investigation against Dick Cheney in
2008). Has this ever happened before?

~~~
wtallis
Keep in mind that 8 of the last 20 years were the historically scandal-free
Obama presidency. See eg. [https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/atd-I...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/atd-INDICTMENTS-0125.png)

The Obama presidency wasn't completely scandal-free, but there wasn't much
opportunity for Pulitzer level investigative reporting against him
specifically.

~~~
GeekyBear
It's not so much that there weren't scandals.

It's more about a press corps that let Obama get away with things they would
have never given somebody like Trump a pass for.

For example, look at the press reaction to Obama refusing to prosecute CIA
torture vs. Trump nominating one of the career officials Obama previously gave
a pass to to head up the CIA.

Likewise, I doubt we would give Trump a pass for attempting to move due
process free prisons like Gitmo onto American soil.

~~~
danso
Gina Haspel, the current CIA chief, joined the CIA in 1985 and was not
proposed for a permanent leadership position during Obama's time. Obama made a
compromise in 2009 to not rock the boat when he entered the office. You expect
people to treat this kind of "pardon" as no different than appointing someone
to CIA chief? As Dexter Filkins put it: [0]

> _When Obama took office, in 2009, he declared that he would not prosecute
> anyone involved in the C.I.A.’s interrogation programs, not even senior
> officers, among whom Haspel was one. At the time, Obama said he wanted to
> look forward and not back. But the past, as Obama well knows, never goes
> away. With the prospect of American torture looming again, I wonder if Obama
> regrets his decision. After all, people like Haspel, quite plausibly, could
> have gone to prison._

[0] [https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-new-c-i-a-
deput...](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-new-c-i-a-deputy-
chiefs-black-site-past)

~~~
GeekyBear
If Obama had been willing to live up to America's treaty obligations to
prosecute torture, there is very little doubt that Haspel would have been one
of the people who landed in prison.

>Haspel oversaw a secret “black site” in Thailand, at which prisoners were
waterboarded and subjected to other severe forms of abuse. Haspel later
participated in the destruction of the CIA’s videotapes of some of its torture
sessions.

[https://theintercept.com/2018/03/15/washington-breaks-out-
th...](https://theintercept.com/2018/03/15/washington-breaks-out-the-just-
following-orders-nazi-defense-for-cia-director-designate-gina-haspel/)

However, more to the point, the press reaction to Obama refusing to prosecute
those who ordered or carried out torture mostly came down to expressions of
disappointment.

If Trump had refused to prosecute Bush officials for their crimes, he would
not have gotten a pass.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
> If Trump had refused to prosecute Bush officials for their crimes, he would
> not have gotten a pass.

That's not the right analogy though. The question is how the press would have
reacted to his decision not to prosecute _Obama_ officials. And given their
reaction to his threats to do so ("lock her up" &c), my guess is that they
would take it as a sign of maturity if he said, "Look, we're not in the
business of trying to throw our political opponents in jail for minor crimes,
because this would look like tyranny."

Which is not to say that Haspel's crimes were minor. But I do want to make it
clear that it's very different to refuse to prosecute people from "the other
team" vs. to give your own team a pass.

~~~
GeekyBear
It honestly had very little to do with which team we are discussing, as Obama
also refused to do so much as fire the CIA officials under his own
administration who were caught red handed spying on Congress while Congress
was writing their torture report, much less prosecute them for doing it.

James Clapper lied under oath while testifying before Congress about NSA
spying, and he suffered no consequences.

We have previously seen baseball players prosecuted for for the relatively
trivial offense of lying to Congress about their personal steroid use.

Obama gave our intelligence agencies a free reign to break the law however
they liked, without consequence, and I sincerely doubt the press would give
somebody like Trump a free pass if his officials were caught pulling the same
crap.

~~~
yostrovs
It's too late. Obama has been canonized into sainthood long ago. Comparisons
are always inadequate, his role in scandals (which apparently don't exist) is
always far removed. Louis Lerner is as far up the chain as anyone wanted to
dig into the IRS scandal that didn't exist and that didn't lead to a stolen
election. The double standard is transparently obvious. The faithful just
don't acknowledge it.

------
dominotw
This is like going to a film festival to watch spiderman 2. I was hoping to
pick up something for next read but I really don't want to read another trump
stuff. All the trump/immigrant/women/muslim/minority news have cast a pall of
anxiety and dread over my life.

was hoping to get some awarness about a new cause/topic but this just whats in
news cycle everyday.

------
colechristensen
This is problematic.

Pulitzer is rewarding high-brow emotional appeal journalism. All disaster and
irrelevant scandal. The journalism we need today is shining light on the ever-
increasing complexities of the world and the effects, not the latest shock,
awe, and smear.

