The Pulitzer Prize is supposed to be awarded to journalists whose work is actually good for society in some way, rather than simply churning out sensationalist

The Pulitzer Prize is supposed to be awarded to journalists whose work is actually good for society in some way, rather than simply churning out sensationalist content for crass commercial or ulterior political motives, and yet it's named after someone whose entire career was driven by the exact opposite motivations. It's funny, much like it would be funny to name a human rights award after Idi Amin. And it answers the implied question I quoted at the beginning of the post--that the "ideals" that journalism "may have aspired to in the past" did not, in fact, exist.