By Steve Rhodes
For those who saw my earlier note, I’m actually going to post this column first and then resume working on our other posts for the rest of the site today because that’s taking quite some time. And now on to the news . . .
I haven’t been this stunned about a Pulitzer Prize winner since, well, last year when the Sun-Times won for a wholly flawed series on crime. (I never got around to that exposition, but maybe I can return to it later this week.)
Actually, I’m never stunned, just bummed out, because the Pulitzers are almost as bad as the Grammy’s (and not quite as bad as the local Lisagors) when it comes to rewarding the profession’s best. I mean, consider who’s doing the judging.
As Jack Shafer once wrote for Slate:
“As a judge of other, lesser journalistic contests, I can tell you that it’s a good thing the winners are chosen in private rather than under the scrutiny of C-SPAN’s cameras. There’s no real science or even fairness behind the picking of winners and losers, with the prizes handed out according to a formula composed of one part log-rolling, two parts merit, three parts ‘we owe him one,’ and four parts random distribution.”
So with a slightly heavy heart, let’s take a look at the Pulitzer Prize-winning Mary Schmich, now ordained as one of the best in the business – ever.
Read More
Posted on April 17, 2012