51–60 of 63 posts
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.
No, the work was eligible. I doubt Dershowitz's petition had any sway over the board. Frankly, while Julie Brown's reporting was astounding, there were better work. The Herald was a finalist for a story they did about gold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 onc…
How long do they debate for? Latest piece is from june 2018(or I missed soemthing fresher?)!
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.
How delusional are you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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…
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.
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
A Pulitzer was awarded for reporting on Clinton's Lewinsky affair: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/maureen-dowd And I'm on mobile now but I'm sure they were awarded for some things having to do with the Iraq War. If presidents commit crimes, that's highly notable (and a big deal).