N.Y. Times agrees 1932 Pulitzer Prize was not deserved

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1003/23pulitzer.html

The executive editor of the New York Times said Wednesday that the paper has no objection if the Pulitzer Prize board wants to revoke an award granted to one of its reporters 71 years ago.

Stepping into a simmering controversy over whether Walter Duranty deserved the prize for his largely favorable reporting on Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, Bill Keller said the paper has notified the board that the Times considers Duranty's work "pretty dreadful ... It was a parroting of propaganda." (emphasis mine)

After a review conducted by a history professor, Keller said, the Times essentially told the board in a letter that "it's up to you to decide whether to take it back. We can't unaward it. Here's our assessment of the guy's work: His work was clearly not prizeworthy."

...more...

the more things change, the more they stay the same

Stepping into a simmering controversy over whether Thomas Friedman deserved the prize for his largely favorable reporting on George Bush's United States, Chad Skimthorpe said the paper has notified the board that the Times considers Friedman's work "pretty dreadful ... It was a parroting of propaganda." (emphasis mine)

it was awarded in the context of the era and should stay as such.

propaganda is eternal.

The award serves as a tool to show what was recognized as great reporting of that era.

whatever floats to the top.

eom

The "context of his era" is best described as fawning before the altar of the market and glorifying the myth of US exceptionalism.

Those who swallowed Friedman's wisdom - an outlook that regards investment and invasion with equal blind confidence - look pretty foolish today. First they lost their shirts. Now they're losing their wars.

For that matter, when is the NY Times going to revoke Judith Miller's status as favorite Pentagon stooge? Shouldn't she be too embarrassed after carrying all that water about WMD to publish *anything*?

could you clarify your point, because i think we are on different pages here.

that would help. Explain how this dimbulb's endless warmongering touched our hearts.

Once in a lifetime, there comes a man who speaks for a generation: Thomas Friedman.

im sorry if you felt i implied that. What i was saying was that an award like this serves as a historical barometer to show what is percieved by an era to be considered the "best", not what i consider best.

lets just say that i dont go to him for insight.

or do you read him for his fantastic advocacy of Frenchie-smashing?

It seems to me that you are really arguing against yourself. The point is that Friedman might now be given an award -- because we live in times when propaganda is plentiful and praised -- but, in the long light of history, it may be seen for precisely the war-mongering, bush-cheerleading crap that it is.

Tom Friedman is doubleplusgood. Tom Friedman makes neoconservative stuff slide down so smooth, I don't even mind I'm being bamboozled by a bozo!

but I had just finished reading this article when I saw your post, Based on your post,I'm guessing Friedman has been a Repub groupie,so I'm wondering if todays op-ed is significant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/opinion/23FRIE.html

<snip>
Free Advice to G.O.P.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: October 23, 2003

Republicans seem to think they don't have to think when it comes to Iraq. They only have to applaud the president and whack the press for not reporting more good news from Baghdad — and everything will be fine. Well, think again.

<snip>

That's right, Jack Kerouac's masterpiece was viciously dammed by the paper.

Silent Spring was ripped apart by Time magazine.

No one in the media knows anything.

Gilbert Milstein? Sic? Something like that.

I'm a fan of "Doctor Sax" and "Visions of Cody" - great work...

BS all over again.

Is this to provide a purpose for C.Chevron Rice?

What exactly about this is BS?

72 years ago...And, am I correct in assuming that neither Duranty nor any members of the 1932 board are still alive?

Freakin' NYT spends too damn much time reading their archives. Wasn't it the NYT that published a retraction on the day Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon on an editorial from 1903 where they called the Wright Bros. "frauds", stating "The Times regrets the Error"?

Does anyone besides middle-aged university English/History professors who are still virgins give a damn about this?

.. ya can't take back a grade 12 diploma just cuz the guy/gal turns out to be stupid

.. ya can't take away a previous prom queens crown from the 30's, 40's 50's whatever cuz by TODAY's standards she ain' purty enuf

.. and so on

..feckadee,

..the world's got enuf problems withoutaking stuff away from people

. . even after they are DEAD !!

. . let's try "giving", not "taking" ?

(never make into Junior's team with THAT attitude - right??)

silly me

:dunce: