Monday, April 27, 2009


Roy J. Harris, Jr. opines in the Christian Science Monitor that maybe it's time for the Pullitzers to recognize digital journalism not only as a way to legitimize it, but also to give the whole industry a well-needed shot in the arm.

What I wonder is why there needs to be any distinction at all between print and digital when it comes to recognizing excellence. The awards are for the reporting, not the means of delivery, right? That should put sites like and Talking Points Memo clearly in the running.

From his op-ed:

Last December, the Pulitzer organization sought a desperately needed boost – in part, perhaps, to spare the awards from becoming an anachronism amid the growth of Twitter, the blogosphere, and other channels for news unknown just a few years ago. It decided to allow entries in all 14 journalism categories from web-only news organizations. (The ruling exempted the work of websites operated by print magazines and broadcasters, even though that work competes with newspaper sites for readers.)

Of the 1,028 total journalism submissions from around the country, there were 65 entries from online enterprises. Thirty-seven online-only news organizations entered. But only one was mentioned by name in the Pulitzer results: Politico (and it has a limited print version), whose editorial cartoonist was a finalist.

1 comment:

Cam said...

That's interesting. Why have they not been recognized before? Is it because the line between online (digital) journalism and blogging has been blurred too much?

Maybe that distinction needs to be properly defined. Pulitzers can't do all the work.