Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2019 Pulitzer Prize Winners

pulitzer.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: 2019 Pulitzer Prize Winners

#41

Post by danso »

GeekyBear wrote: post #38
wtallis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 m…

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...

Re: 2019 Pulitzer Prize Winners

#42

Post by jacobolus »

DSingularity wrote: post #28
RobAtticus wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/14…

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

Every public debate I have ever seen Dershowitz engage in (maybe 6 or 7 over the years) was profoundly disingenuous. Some of it I would characterize as blatant lying. Above and beyond that, he is consistently extremely rude to his interlocutors.

The man pretends to be an intellectual, but makes a mockery of it. It’s really a shame that Harvard continues to lend him its institutional credibility, and that other respected institutions invite him to comment about anything ever.

(I have no insight about the Epstein stuff; I’m just talking about his past public debates about a variety of legal and political topics.)

Re: 2019 Pulitzer Prize Winners

#44

Post by 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.

Re: 2019 Pulitzer Prize Winners

#45

Post by GeekyBear »

danso wrote: post #41
GeekyBear wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

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 pros…

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...

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.

Re: 2019 Pulitzer Prize Winners

#46

Post by Bendingo »

781 wrote: post #22

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.

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.

Re: 2019 Pulitzer Prize Winners

#47

Post by basetop »

781 wrote: post #22

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.

I don't get why you are being downvoted. Mueller said there was no russian collusion.

And The NYTimes even published an "apology".

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/opinion/mueller-trump-no-...

It's disappointing how politicized social media has become.

Re: 2019 Pulitzer Prize Winners

#48

Post by istjohn »

Bendingo wrote: post #46
781 wrote: post #22

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.

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.

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.

Re: 2019 Pulitzer Prize Winners

#49

Post by istjohn »

basetop wrote: post #47
781 wrote: post #22

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.

I don't get why you are being downvoted. Mueller said there was no russian collusion. And The NYTimes even published an "apology". https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/opinion/mueller-trump-no-... It's disappointing how politicized social media has become.

An op-ed column does not speak for the newspaper it is published in. It's literally the opposite of the editorial board. Thus the name "op-ed."

Mueller never said there was no collusion. Trump said Mueller said there was no collusion. Barr's summary quotes Mueller's report as saying “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” So they didn't find proof of collusion. That is not the same as concluding that collusion did not occur.

Barr also provides this other quote from Mueller's report: “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Re: 2019 Pulitzer Prize Winners

#50

Post by basetop »

istjohn wrote: post #49
basetop wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get why you are being downvoted. Mueller said there was no russian collusion. And The NYTimes even published an "apology". https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/opinion/mueller-trump-no-... It's disappointing how politicized social media has become.

An op-ed column does not speak for the newspaper it is published in. It's literally the opposite of the editorial board. Thus the name "op-ed." Mueller never said there was no collusion. Trump said Mueller said there was no collusion. Barr's summary quotes Mueller's report as saying “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its el…

As far as I know, op-ed stood for opinon editorial. To say it is "opposite of the editorial board" doesn't make sense when the editorial board themselves contribute to the op-ed. For example, the editorial board endorsed hillary clinton on their op-ed. How could that possibly be "opposite of the editorial board"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-cl...

Also, david brooks is a well established journalist who has written for the nytimes for a long time. Not saying he speaks for The NYTimes but I'm sure he expressed some of their sentiments.

In our legal system, we have the concept innocent until proven guilty. "Didn't find proof of collusion" means there wasn't any collusion for all intents and purposes. To claim collusion without proof is partaking in the world of conspiracy theories.

As for Mueller's statement, of course it doesn't exonerate Trump. In order to be exonerated, you have to be convicted of a crime first. You are exonerated of convictions. You also aren't exonerated for russian collusion because you've never been convicted of russian collusion. Mueller's statement apllies to you, me and pretty much everyone on earth.

You make it impossible to have a logical and rational conversation because you've decided to reject logic and rationality for politics, semantics and conspiracy theory. This is why the surge of politics on social media worries me.

Post reply on HN