4 comments

• 

  Drew Clark

  1 year ago

  No one can dispute the quality of the work for Pulitzers, but the prize's stature is destined to be diminished if id doesn't expand its purview beyond ink-on-paper entries.
  reply
• 

  MikeT

  1 year ago

  Egads, you guys switched to WordPress? What's the world coming to?!
  reply
• 

  David McElroy

  1 year ago

  I'm sure the rule you cite (requiring a story to have appeared in print) will change eventually. But even if it does, I suspect the prizes will still mostly go to print journalists. Despite the fact that the electronic media are rapidly growing (in influence and audience size), I find that the quality of print journalism is still much better, especially as compared to the shoddy standards of "TV news" (which I consider somewhat of an oxymoron). Newspaper writing and editing are getting worse, but they're still better than the vast majority of what's cranked out by those with no print background. Of course, I'm terribly biased, because I was one of those print dinosaurs until I realized which way the winds were blowing about 16 years ago. :-)
  reply
• 

  James Gattuso

  1 year ago

  True enough, at least in the short run. If the rule didn't exist, I don't think think your average pajama-clad blogger would be walking away with armloads of Pulitzers. But there are some online outlets that already can stand up to anything on paper. I cited CNET and Salon.com, but there are more. Remember, also, that online writing isn't necessarily by those with no print background -- some of the best are in fact by print refugees like yourself.
  reply