4 ms·

Article author here .... Thanks for reading. Not sure if you had a chance to read the actual article that ran between the headline and the comments section, bu

by GCA10 9y ago

Article author here .... Thanks for reading. Not sure if you had a chance to read the actual article that ran between the headline and the comments section, but just in case ... In paragraph 10 of the story, I observe: "It would be hard for a single blog post, no matter how detailed, to compete in the Pulitzers' investigative reporting category, where winners tend to be multi-part series that involve resource-intensive data collection. But the Pulitzers' public-service category is more fluid." More broadly, the grand old prizes (Nobel, Pulitzer, etc.) are wrestling with ways to update their century-old formats to match the world we live in. Any effort to stretch old boundaries will be at least slightly controversial. Even so, it's a more interesting world if the Nobel Prize for literature stretches to include Bob Dylan than if it doesn't. In the same way, starting to think about how/where to recognize the very best of the blogosphere in the Pulitzers is a conversation worth having.

CobrastanJorji 9y ago
> Thanks for reading. Not sure if you had a chance to read the actual article that ran between the headline and the comments section... Grade A snark like that is how we know this is a Pulitzer-winning journalist.
- nodejbackend 9y ago
  haha gottem
- shawn-butler 9y ago
  Snark deserves nothing but derision. I can't think of a single redeeming value of snark to be honest. It's facetious, dishonest and toxic. It's not even good comedy.
Cuntaholic 9y ago
You must have an extremely easy life that was full of participation trophies
Whatacunt 9y ago
You sound like a cunt who had too many participation trophies
jimmywanger 9y ago
> to compete in the Pulitzers' investigative reporting category, where winners tend to be multi-part series that involve resource-intensive data collection. I believe the whole point is that there was no data collection or investigation of any sort, just a bunch of (still) unconfirmed personal anecdotes. Now, if she had somehow managed to legally obtain records of leaked emails and documents from different, corroborated sources, and managed to stitch together and paint a coherent narrative, then it wouldn't matter what training she received, she would be an investigative journalist and would and should be considered for the pulitzer, even though she wasn't writing for any traditional media source. As it stands, she's put together a compelling piece of writing about personal experience that tends to be supported by other evidence that's only now coming forward, not collected by her and released by her. Any sort of investigative journalism should pay attention to both investigation and jornalism (of any sort and format), or else it should not be considered for that category, or else there should be another category created for "personal experience shared".

by GCA10 9y ago

CobrastanJorji 9y ago

> Thanks for reading. Not sure if you had a chance to read the actual article that ran between the headline and the comments section... Grade A snark like that is how we know this is a Pulitzer-winning journalist.

nodejbackend 9y ago
haha gottem
shawn-butler 9y ago
Snark deserves nothing but derision. I can't think of a single redeeming value of snark to be honest. It's facetious, dishonest and toxic. It's not even good comedy.

Cuntaholic 9y ago

You must have an extremely easy life that was full of participation trophies

Whatacunt 9y ago

You sound like a cunt who had too many participation trophies

jimmywanger 9y ago

> to compete in the Pulitzers' investigative reporting category, where winners tend to be multi-part series that involve resource-intensive data collection. I believe the whole point is that there was no data collection or investigation of any sort, just a bunch of (still) unconfirmed personal anecdotes. Now, if she had somehow managed to legally obtain records of leaked emails and documents from different, corroborated sources, and managed to stitch together and paint a coherent narrative, then it wouldn't matter what training she received, she would be an investigative journalist and would and should be considered for the pulitzer, even though she wasn't writing for any traditional media source. As it stands, she's put together a compelling piece of writing about personal experience that tends to be supported by other evidence that's only now coming forward, not collected by her and released by her. Any sort of investigative journalism should pay attention to both investigation and jornalism (of any sort and format), or else it should not be considered for that category, or else there should be another category created for "personal experience shared".