3 ms·
Your links don’t support your conclusion.
by rideontime 4y ago
Your links don’t support your conclusion.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoSupport? The NE is a rag. A self-professed rag. But suddenly - cash under the table? - it's professional journalism? Lips stick on a pig...is still a pig. And you can sprinkle magic pixie dust on a turd and make it something else. If the likes of The NE can get a Pulitzer, then that prize has lost its meaning and significance. Let's not be so naive, please.
- mattkrause 4y agoAs your Guardian link says, the National Enquirer did not actually win a Pulitzer. If you think of the prize as being given for results rather than the process, it’s not that wild: they broke a major story that affected a presidential election. People occasionally find something valuable while digging through the trash, which seems like a pretty apt analogy. Likewise, the Nobel prize for grapheme was effectively for scribbling with a pencil on Scotch Tape and repeatedly pulling it apart. I used to do this in elementary school, but does it cheapen the Nobel Prize? I’d argue no, the prize is——-in part——-for realizing what you’ve got.
- rideontime 4y agoDid you read the article you linked?