Slate republishes a 2004 piece entitled "Pulitzer Schmulitzer" (if it's on the internet does it really need to be "republished") about the history of the Pulitzer Prize, how little any one cares about the award (other than the winners), and how to improve it.
That should make the Philadelphia Inquirer feel better about its current lowly state of front-page ads, insanely oversized photographs (space filler), deceptive advertising posing as news items, shoddy copyediting, and overall lack of substance.
Inquirer mogul Brian Tierney's must be thinking the same thing. If no one cares, why not wreck a rich history of award-winning journalism.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Good News for People Who Love Bad News (i.e. The Inquirer)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It's funny. My book club decided to make most of our selections Pultizer Prize winners. By and large they are well-written but bloated and leave us scratching our heads. Why in the hell did this win the big prize? You know what I'm talking about Gilead (snoozeville) and Optimist's Daughter. Half of them are set in the Civil War and written by white old men. Tsk, Tsk.
Post a Comment