9 ms·
The reference to the Pulitzer prize is correct. You just have to read it in the correct light. The author intends to convey that the work of Woodward and Bernst
by sergiosgc 13y ago
The reference to the Pulitzer prize is correct. You just have to read it in the correct light. The author intends to convey that the work of Woodward and Bernstein was held in high status by the society at the time.
- danso 13y ago...And it still is. The last investigative journalism conference I went to, Woodward was the keynote speaker. Seymour Hersh and James Bamford, too. The recent set of investigative and public service Pulitzers aren't chump change themselves: http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Investigative-Reporting http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Investigative-Reporting http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Public-Service http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Public-Service What I find faulty about the OP's premise is that he bemoans the dying press, which he sees as making a devil's deal with the "ruling class". I wonder if the OP considered the effect of the Internet on news organizations' business model as a possible reason why there seems to be less substantive news, or is that just too prosaic of an explanation?