The Pulitzer Prizes were just awarded, and once again, I was left off the winners list. Why? Why would the Pulitzer committee knowingly choose to undermine my self-esteem?
As I wring my hands and wrack my obviously inferior brain, the answer hits me like a bolt out of a blue state. I didn't win, get nominated or even noticed because I didn't meet their very rigid criteria for selection. As simple and telling as that.
And what exactly is the litmus test a writer has to pass before the Pulitzer committee deems his or her work acceptable? Well, as near as I can tell, to make the grade, one must have done at least one of the following: Betray national secrets; go after only Republican lobbyists; tackle only Republican corruption; blame the United States for everything wrong in the world: and the surefire attention getter; try to tear down the presidency of George W. Bush.
Looking at the winners, it's hard to fault MacKinnon's logic. He wraps it up this way:
Still not convinced that Columbia University and its Pulitzer committee uses a liberal checklist? Then I implore you to look at the names of this year's finalists. From Republican-hating fashion writers, to Republican-hating editorial cartoonists, to Republican-bashing editorial boards, you will find a wish list from the left, of politically correct, more than diverse, "journalists" who are driven solely by an agenda and not the responsibilities of a once noble profession.
I wonder if the Pulitzer committee will award a prize for "examining and exposing" the "blatant liberal bias" of the Pulitzer committee. I think I'll submit this column just in case.
Read the whole thing. It's an eye-opener about the state of modern "journalism".
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment