– Clarity Award, for the editor breathing precision into a previously muddled account by a very tired, covering-three-beats reporter who had the facts but not the energy or inclination to sort them out clearly.
– Courage Award, for the editor killing a story at the last minute that just couldn’t be saved by even a team of Clarity Award winners.
– Outrageous Courage Award, for the same, when the story was planned for Page 1.
– Lazarus Award, for the editor guiding a reporter who had only part of a story, thus putting it in in line for a quick death, to pull together the reporting, background and whatever else was needed to put the story back on the news budget.

Probably those still editing daily/nightly can add to this list … not that it’s precisely on-topic. I just couldn’t resist a mention.

Let me add my adulation, great piece. I’m still chuckling about the fact that only newspaper people will find it radical to embrace reality. That said, I’m still looking for someone to write a thesis on the (mostly positive, IMO) impact of the Pulitzer on U.S. journalism so I really hope that positive impact can continue.

Persephone

Well said. I shared a similar concern about convergence and the antiquity of format distinctions with members of the board soon after the new rules were announced. An Unnamed Source With Knowledge of the Boards Deliberations (take that as you will, I have a graduate student office at the Columbia J-School) told me that two concerns they had with this were:

1. Logistical (a limited number of underpaid submission reviewers and a fear that open the gates entirely would inundate the committee on the administrative end).

and especially

2. Stepping on the feet of the “other” prizes. The historical sludge from which the Pulitzer’s emerged, with their emphasis only on newspapers, led to the creation of a number of other prizes, like the National Magazine Awards … and so on. There is a fear that throwing open the gates will lead to conflict with, or the elimination of, the other prizes. While this may be the thing to do in theory, the fear is that this would be seen as unilateralism and aggrandizement.

I don’t agree that these are good enough reasons a not to take the radical steps you call for, but they do throw some light on the complexity of the problem, and show how long old, dying structures live on. Would it be too much to ask for the reps. of the major journalism awards to get together in a room and figure this all out? Probably.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
(sorry to pack the ballot box, but…yes.)

However, I don’t think that the possibility of ‘any kind’ including citizen journalism is even going to cross their minds. Wouldn’t you agree?

l know that you know, Dan. I just wonder about them. We are the choir, they are not; this is why I think that an explicit mention would have been nice, that’s all!

I wrote about this for PeriodismoCiudadano http://is.gd/b2SM

The article praises your advice to the Board profusely. It’s mind-blowing how out-of-date these guys are. However, I couldn’t help it, and have to give you some criticism for not hinting -at least- at the next blurring that needs to be addressed: that between professional and citizen journalism.

These prices should do away with the format distinctions you talk about, I agree, but the Board should go one step beyond and consider rewarding excellence in journalism regardless of whether it is coming from citizens, or from professional journalists.

Professional media is moving in the direction of using citizen journalism for its own advantage, which is great because the internet is all about sharing, remixing and co-creating information. However, the idea of giving back, not only attribution, but true journalistic recognition when deserved, is still unthought of.

My favorite, and the most we-the-media advice you gave is “put all of this out for public comment.(..) You’ll be amazed at the great ideas others will have”. Yes, collective intelligence and conversational information. That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it.

So… what do you think of opening these prizes to journalism created by non-professionals?

And yes we have “international Emmys”, “daytime Emmys” why not second ranked Pulitzers for readers who don’t leave the U.S.

The prominence of “international pulitzers” would show that there are many writers, and good publishers out in the real world.

See Deutsche Welle’s BOB awards of last week.