I love team awards.
I realise it's probably auto correct, yet that's still so out of http://n-gate.com :)
As you might imagine, teams which do not have this conflict have substantially more time to focus on their customers.
Here is a recent article about the situation if indeed your head is below ground: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-news-041...
They credit the team but specifically name the individual members as well.
The Clios are pretty big as industry awards go.
On the contrary, most interns I know wouldn't be doing this because of how overworked they are doing the grunt work.
But seriously, I am actually an award winning writer (and it's not even my profession, it's just a hobby) and I do comment on reddit a lot... they're stealing comments without attribution? Ethics aside, that's just terrible journalism to say the least.
That comment was from Reddit.
Whenever I see youtube clips on evening news, my thought is the exact opposite - why am I bothering to watch this, when I can just head over to YouTube and catch it without a pair of talking heads doing their own version of a Reaction Video about it?
I get that it’s a fun story but it honestly just seems redicules.
> From there, she took it upon herself to create a database for Enquirer reporters, documenting the time, location, and nature of every opioid-related arrest that occured over those days.
The article also says that because of that database they were able to fill gaps in the article and make it as compelling as it was.
GP wrote a statement that sounds like "interns should be added to the byline for pulitzer prizes." The way its written sounds like a general statement. In reality, I'm not sure this is a reasonable expectation (as in, the word "should" seems inappropriate.)
We should consider what makes someones work Pullitzer prize worthy. I'd speculate (because I don't know much about journalism) that it really comes down to doing outstanding work, more than is usually expected of any individual, and for succeeding on metrics that are hard to succeed on.
This intern did something valuable, adding things to the database, and probably coming up with the idea for the database herself, but does this meet the criteria of being truly standout, incredible work?
The nature of this particular award that it was given to the entire staff who contributed substantially to the coverage, seems like she is thus worthy, but I don't think treating OP like they're being ridiculous is reasonable. This is a worthwhile question. I think a lot of people on this site are familiar with awards being given to people who don't seem to deserve it, so investigating this topic, for a case that resembles that pattern, doesn't seem so offensive or outrageous as you've kind of termed it.
The OP compared her work to someone “wiping down Einstein’s blackboard”. The dismissal of that comment was entirely warranted.
The reality that Duranty denied was comparable to the holocaust. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people died and the Times apologized for it.
If the helper knows what to wipe off and what to leave up for when Einstein comes back, then I'd say yes. That's a more fitting analogy in this case.
It is a tremendous work of crafting mixed media.
Just one excerpt:
"Elliana, who turns eight months old today, is here for a checkup at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. She’s a patient at a special clinic that treats babies for neonatal abstinence syndrome, which occurs when babies are born to mothers addicted to heroin.
The infants can suffer tremors, sleeplessness, seizures and other withdrawal symptoms.
Elliana gurgles and wobbles a bit when Uebel sits her on the examining table. As she checks out the baby, Uebel quizzes Gaffney on Elliana’s progress.
“Is she holding things?”
“She takes stuff and then drops it out of her chair,” Gaffney says. “She looks at it, then she looks at me and laughs.”
“Good,” Uebel says.
The clinic’s goal is to monitor the babies, but also to support the mothers. Many, like Gaffney, used heroin and other opiates for years.
Gaffney, 28, quit cold turkey after learning she was pregnant. She’s living now with the baby at First Step Home, a treatment center in Walnut Hills. They plan to move into an apartment together soon.
After years of addiction, Gaffney’s goals are modest. She wants to raise her child in a normal home. She wants a normal life.
Uebel finishes the examination. “She looks real, real good,” she says.
Gaffney is relieved. She scoops Elliana into her arms and takes her appointment card for her next visit to the clinic in December.
“See you then,” she says.
(Ten days later, Gaffney is dead from a heroin overdose.)"
It requires a lot of man-hours, and isn't as profitable as the minimal effort required to regurgitate whatever the latest sensational scandal is.
As far as I can tell, there is an avalanche (that’s a reference) of excellent, deeply reported stories, making good use of technology, on important subjects both titilating and not.
Just go through the other award winners, or the webby award nominees in the relevant categories.
I'm certainly not perfect, but I'm increasingly good at ignoring click-bait links.
EDIT: fixed a critical typo
I knew someone who worked for a company that monitored newswires and other media all day watching for breaking stories. They then rewrote them in an SEO or viral friendly way, propagated them through social media using bots or an influencer network. By being the first to publish something that ranked on news aggregators, they could pull in views and get ad money.
If the story was from a subscription newswire I guess this is okay. If you are writing a story reporting someone else reported a story you are kinda stealing revenue from the people who did the hunting.
But whoever does that will win, and writing a story that will spread then getting it to the aggregators is a skill.
I understand why you feel that way. It's clearly a broadside, aimed squarely at where journalism comes from. Where else can that be but professional journalists?
Yet, is it perhaps possible that the comment to which you have taken exception might also be understood by some to be one in the direction of the business models that suppport, fund, and direct professional journalists?
All lawmakers should be forced to read this article, maybe they'll do something about it if they come to realize that you can't tax the dead.
We live in a sick world...
You only have to look towards the Philippines to know the kind of results such an attitude if left unchecked can engender.
In general there is an argument against which is - it's better suited to medical professionals. Which is far from "because heroin addicts deserve to die"
At best a we don't care argument.
As an aside: WaPo is cheap-as-free if you have an Amazon Prime subscription (several months free, and then the price goes up to something like the price of a cup of coffee every month), and they've broken a number of really important stories just in the past couple of years. I can't think of many reasons for folks who already have Prime to not have a WaPo subscription. It's good, neutral and well-sourced, journalism at a great price, so it's one of my national paper subscriptions.
I really wanted to get paper delivery, but the price was just too high. Also it would probably be unrealistic that I actually read the paper - as I do most of my reading when I have a few idle minutes.
A few years ago I subscribed to The Economist...you can find it at a good price on slickdeals once in a while. Their articles were highly indepth and provided a good international perspective...even in magazine format I couldn't read even half of the content.
They also have a history of compromising the integrity of their stories or editorial pages to suit the government (e.g. WRT the Snowden leaks, and war coverage) or corporations (e.g. on climate change). I still think they're a top-tier organization in the field, certainly above 99% of everything else out there, I just wish I could trust them more. That they're great 99 times out of 100 doesn't mean it's not really frustrating when their rare fuck ups are so monumental and occasionally disastrous in their outcome (Iraq war, President Trump; NYTimes didn't cause either problem, but they helped).
There would need to be some sort of model where you pay regularly to keep a whole team of people employed.
This goes double if you subscribe to something in addition to the NYT or WaPo — a ton of local stories have been ignored because the regional press was cut to the bone and there’s really no substitute for reporters who live in the area.
I do this!
The next morning in class, as I went through the door, my classmates stood up and started cheering and clapping at me. I had some sort of happiness brain meltdown where I didn't even know how to react. From that moment, students I didn't know from all majors stopped me at the campus cafeteria and hallways to ask me about it.
I think being recognized by your peers in this way gives a different kind of perspective/feeling that I had never felt before.
I don't think she will have much difficulty finding a job after she graduates with that on her resume :-). I was trying to imagine a CS student applying for a job where it mentions they have already won the Turing award. That would be crazy.
"Her investigations have led to more than 50 criminal cases against politicians, businessmen and public officials, and pursued by law-enforcement in Costa Rica, the United Kingdom, France, Finland and the United States." (https://journalism.columbia.edu/columbia-journalism-school-a...)
Lots college kids win startup hackathon awards, akin to the Pulitzer.
The Pulitzer doesn't honor the best work or the greatest achievements, just a sampling of great work.
Swear words don't have to be negative. Language changes with each generation, words find new uses and connotations and intensities. I for one enjoy my generation's creative takes on conventional swear words!
I missed the "FUCK YOU" in the text message image. Sorry!!
Is there any gender/race stuff here? The linked story doesn't bring her race up at all, and only mentions her gender to the extent that it uses pronouns. I went and did a quick google news search, and didn't see any discussion of it in those terms, though I'll certainly admit I might have missed it.
For that matter, in this comments section, you're the only one who brought either of those things up. What's up with that?
I'm not arguing that she shouldn't have won a Pulitzer for her reporting if her reporting were genuinely worthy of a Pulitzer (it wasn't, but that's another story,) but... srsly?
Nowhere in the article is mentioned that she's a philipino.
> but does not explain much about about the story she reported on that won a Pulitzer
Published in September 2017, the story, “Seven Days of Heroin,” prompted a nationwide conversation about the opioid crisis, reflected in newsrooms around the country.
> I'm not arguing that she shouldn't have won a Pulitzer for her reporting if her reporting were genuinely worthy of a Pulitzer
Who would argue that and expect to be taken seriously?
> (it wasn't, but that's another story,)
Have you even read it?
I wasn't able to scroll for the first few minutes the page was open. I switched tabs to whine about it here, switched back, and suddenly I could scroll.