4 ms·

The 1619 Project was such an awful bit of journalism. Totally not surprised it won a Pulitzer.

phantarch 6y ago
The entire project did not win, just one story from it by one person: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/nikole-hannah-jones-new-york-times https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/nikole-hannah-jones-new-yor...
mulmen 6y ago
I don't understand the usage of awful here. Are you using it to suggest the journalism is good and deserving of recognition (confusing) or that the Pulitzer is an award for bad journalism?
- djannzjkzxn 6y ago
  I believe that illiilliiililil is expressing a somewhat complex set of opinions: 1) They genuinely don’t like the 1619 project. 2) They understand that the Pulitzer is supposed to be an award for good journalism. 3) They believe that journalism about some subjects is more likely to win a Pulitzer without being the best by illiilliiililil‘s standards. You could compare it to the concept of an “Oscar bait” movie: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_bait https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_bait I’m not sure I agree with this criticism - I think exploring tough subjects can lead to great work that is especially deserving of praise.
  - thedudeabides5 6y ago
    On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain “in order to ensure slavery would continue.” This is not true https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-th...
junius2020 6y ago
The 1619 should have been in time magazine or national geographic, not the new york times. Because its not news, its pseudo-anthropology designed to create a legitimate citation source for teachers and academia in general. Now high school students can write nonsense in an essay and cite the New York Times as a source, and get A+ from their teachers. This is the real purpose of it

The entire project did not win, just one story from it by one person: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/nikole-hannah-jones-new-york-times https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/nikole-hannah-jones-new-yor...

mulmen 6y ago

I don't understand the usage of awful here. Are you using it to suggest the journalism is good and deserving of recognition (confusing) or that the Pulitzer is an award for bad journalism?

djannzjkzxn 6y ago
I believe that illiilliiililil is expressing a somewhat complex set of opinions: 1) They genuinely don’t like the 1619 project. 2) They understand that the Pulitzer is supposed to be an award for good journalism. 3) They believe that journalism about some subjects is more likely to win a Pulitzer without being the best by illiilliiililil‘s standards. You could compare it to the concept of an “Oscar bait” movie: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_bait https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_bait I’m not sure I agree with this criticism - I think exploring tough subjects can lead to great work that is especially deserving of praise.
- thedudeabides5 6y ago
  On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain “in order to ensure slavery would continue.” This is not true https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-th...

junius2020 6y ago

The 1619 should have been in time magazine or national geographic, not the new york times. Because its not news, its pseudo-anthropology designed to create a legitimate citation source for teachers and academia in general. Now high school students can write nonsense in an essay and cite the New York Times as a source, and get A+ from their teachers. This is the real purpose of it