Reply 1 -
Posted by: dolphin, 11/21/2003 5:34:55
PM
I hereby
revoke my respect for the Pulitzer Prize. The
New York Times lost my respect a long time
ago.
|
Reply 2 -
Posted by: rmsimms, 11/21/2003 5:35:16
PM
Why would
they revoke it? No doubt they're proud of the
effort Duranty and the New York Times
expended to whitewash Stalin and the
Bolshevik regime....thier only regret is they
failed to bring communism to the US.
|
Reply 3 -
Posted by: NWconservative, 11/21/2003 5:39:39
PM
Does this
mean that we can stop apologizing for slavery
now? After all, if the media types don't have
to own up to their passed mistakes....
|
Reply 4 -
Posted by: warlock, 11/21/2003 5:42:11
PM
This
certainly does much to cement the credibility
of the Pulitzer Prize. It would now seem to
qualify as the greatest honor that can be
bewstowed on a liar posing as a journalist.
|
Reply 5 -
Posted by: samjohnson, 11/21/2003 5:46:15
PM
Asking the
NYTimes to judge Duranty adversely is like
asking al Qaeda to convict Osama of crimes
vs. humanity. Duranty was the quintessential
modern liberal: he preferred his utopian
fantasies to the actual reality. If Communism
meant murdering millions of innocents, that
didn't matter because the brave new world was
coming.
|
Reply 6 -
Posted by: Pathogen, 11/21/2003 5:47:46
PM
Well I am
just stunned.
|
Reply 7 -
Posted by: Sazedog, 11/21/2003 5:54:28
PM
The Pulitzer
Committee is either stupid beyond belief or
determine to uphold the lies Duranty issued
in a steady flow.
The committee focused on Duranty's reports of
the terror famine in the Ukraine in 1932-33
when Stalin forced collectivization.
Impossible grain quotas were set, every scrap
of food was seized and all help from the
outside was blocked. The famine caused more
deaths than the total number of dead in all
countries in WWI
Duranty reported in 1932 that "there is
no famine or actual starvation or is there
likely to be."
Even after the world learned of the full
horror of the famine he wrote, "any
report of a famine in Russia today is an
exaggeration or malignant propaganda."
He was a good friend to Stalin who told him,
"you did a good job for the USSR."
|
Reply 8 -
Posted by: Gandalf, 11/21/2003 5:54:33
PM
An outrage.
Duranty's complicity in Stalin's monstrous
crimes is clear.
|
Reply 9 -
Posted by: Glider Rider 325, 11/21/2003 5:57:00
PM
Did not THE
NEW YORK TIMES recently discharge under a
cloud a previously respected reporter for the
sin of ''making things up''. This decision
can only mean that the real basis for firing
Mr. Blair was RACISM, pure and disgusting.
Malcolm Muggeridge traveled through the
Ukraine, saw the heaps of corpses, the
children with distended bellies, the Chekists
prohibiting escape, and he told the TRUTH.
The soi disant bien pensants vilified him for
it.
THE NEW YORK TIMES traffics in treason
against the Human Race.
|
Reply 10 -
Posted by: NavySEAL F-16, 11/21/2003 5:58:04
PM
Unbelievable!
Have they no shame? If it weren't so tragic,
it would be funny.
|
Reply 11 -
Posted by: kiwikit, 11/21/2003 5:59:07
PM
Evaluate the
prize accordingly. It's a farce built by and
served up to phonies.
The very few worthy recipients: Gigot and
Krauthammer, are excellent in spite of the
prize not because of it. When selecting
something to read, I always make sure that's
it's NOT by a pulitzer winner: my time's too
vaulable to waste on that!
|
Reply 12 -
Posted by: Primal Screamer, 11/21/2003 6:00:46
PM
I've always
wondered about these awards, ever since being
in the news biz. Physicians, plumbers,
veterinarians, or lawyers don't get awards
for doing their jobs. It completely lost
credibility with me when they awarded their
prize to Janet Cook (wasn't it?) for the
stuff she made up about an 8-yr.-old shooter
upper for the W(hat a piece of)P(ig poop).
And I've always wondered how many lies (well,
in this case covering up of a tragedy of
Biblical proportions) have gotten awards.
|
Reply 13 -
Posted by: TmjUtah, 11/21/2003 6:07:31
PM
Well, look at
it another way.
If they sanction Duranty's work, what happens
to the propaganda and liberal shilling that
comprises the historical body of work that IS
the New York Times?
Can't be having integrity enforced at the
Paper of Liberal Talking Points! It would be
like expecting water to flow uphill!
Sarcasm OFF.
|
Reply 14 -
Posted by: ForNow, 11/21/2003 6:08:51
PM
Statues of
bad guys are often hard to pull down. So to
speak.
|
Reply 15 -
Posted by: ForNow, 11/21/2003 6:25:20
PM
I agree with
the NYT that we should not try to rewrite
history.
And they should not have put an astrisk by
Duranty’s name, like the one to show
Mantle’s 61 homers didn’t beat Ruth’s
60, but instead Duranty’s name should
stand clearly crossed out by a line through
it to strike it like text from a contract,
piercing through like a stake through a
vampire’s heart.
Duranty’s Pulitzer must be revoked.
|
Reply 16 -
Posted by: Allegra, 11/21/2003 8:18:58
PM
Agreed.
Also, if Maureenie gets to keep hers in the
face of all her lies, distortions and
misquotes, then what's it worth, anyway?
|
Reply 17 -
Posted by: ForNow, 11/21/2003 9:06:10
PM
Maureen Dowd
got the journalism Pulitzer?!?
Why am I surprised?
I haven’t thought since I grew up that
the literary Pulitzer reliably pointed out
high merit. Why should it be different for
journalism?
I dunno, I just thought she was too
ridiculous. A cocktail napkin with glib
designs, serving a decorative &
tone-setting function for the NY Times.
|
Reply 18 -
Posted by: eliza, 11/21/2003 9:21:26
PM
So there is
no honor among thieves.
Go figure.
|
Reply 19 -
Posted by: dodger32, 11/21/2003 9:33:52
PM
Pulitzer
board? Now I know where the O.J. jury came
from.
"If the prize is a lie - you cannot
deny."
|
Reply 20 -
Posted by: wes mouch, 11/21/2003
10:13:37 PM
So if I
understand the article correctly, in the
Ukraine everything under Stalin was just fine
until 1932, - that's when the bad stuff
started? So every accolade Duranty wrote
before 1932 is just fine and worthy of an
AWARD?
Ahem.
That flies in the face of everything known
about the Soviet Union under Lenin and
Stalin.
|
Reply 21 -
Posted by: sunflower, 11/21/2003
10:17:37 PM
Shows you how
phony, the pulitzer prize is, and the meaning
of the word is, is??? and what it's worth,
NOTHING. N.Y. slimes, still a slime rag,
after all these years.
|
Reply 22 -
Posted by: Publius3457, 11/21/2003
10:25:02 PM
Not a
credible news award.
Given to not a credible news source.
|
Reply 23 -
Posted by: veritas, 11/21/2003
10:54:35 PM
1. They just
changed Duranty's Pulitzer from journalism to
fiction, right?
2. "The board determined that there was
not clear and convincing evidence of
deliberate deception, the relevant standard
in this case," said a statement from Sig
Gissler, Pulitzer administrator.
...from the "Me or your own eyes?"
Department, I guess.
3. Now, at last, the Pulitzers are on a par
with the Nobels.
|
Reply 24 -
Posted by: greggojo, 11/21/2003
11:27:34 PM
Their
standard is absurd. This was a journalism
award. And nothing short of "deliberate
deception" about what was an undeniably
and deadly serious subject will change their
determinination that this was "award
winning journalism"?
|
Reply 25 -
Posted by: greggojo, 11/21/2003
11:33:41 PM
Something
else-
You know what? Liberals are bad people. They
pontificate and speak in dulcet tones and are
ever so effete, but they honestly do not care
at all about people or truth or what's good
and worth living and fighting and dying for
in this world.
|
Reply 26 -
Posted by: Tanstaafl, 11/21/2003
11:40:27 PM
Think about
this:
The margin of error in estimating the
number kiled, murdered, actually, under
communism, is larger than the known number
killed by those other brand of leftists, the
Nazis.
|
Reply 27 -
Posted by: Newtsche, 11/22/2003
12:14:51 AM
If the
"board" saw no deliberate
deception, surely they couldn't miss really
crappy journalism, at least, not worthy of
reward. You don't think this decision was
just so much boilerplate, do ya...?
|
Reply 28 -
Posted by: ForNow, 11/22/2003
12:45:33 AM
This is not
rewriting history, this is writing it right.
Duranty rewrote history while it happened.
This is not making a person into an unperson.
Duranty made murders into unmurders.
Asterisk, shmasterisk, this how, Sulzberger:
Crossed out & undeleted, a name meant to
be seen to have been stricken off:
Walter Duranty
And the Pulitzer Committee must revoke the
prize but, as Andrew Struttaford said, won’t
do so without pressure from the NY Times. Ah,
but publisher Sulzberger doesn’t want to
see such a mark, a line through one of the
Names on the Record, no, don’t even mention
that idea, he wants to see just an elegant,
mute little asterisk as supposed alternative
to that evil Stalinist erasure!
But why shouldn’t the NY Times
carry such a scar visibly? It’s real.
Which is more than can be said for Pinch
Sulzberger.
|
Reply 29 -
Posted by: nofreelunch, 11/22/2003
12:55:56 AM
Obviously,
the Pulitzer committee has no shame that
would allow them to revoke its award. But in
light of all the information that has come to
light in the last 70 years about what a
pantload Duranty's work in the USSR was, how
can the NYT even consider itself on par with
the weekly tabloids without insisting that
Pulitzer take its BS award and stuff it where
the sun doesn't shine. Oh, they display it
with a rinky-dink disclaimer ? How noble.
|
Reply 30 -
Posted by: Cato_the_elder, 11/22/2003 1:42:32
AM
Leftists have
a fool-proof system for these sorts of
things. If Duranty had been lying about the
Nazis, they simply never would have given it
to him in the first place.
|
Reply 31 -
Posted by: steveW, 11/22/2003 2:34:02
AM
The Pulitzer
now takes its rightful place along side the
MTV Music Awards, The Grammies, and the Nobel
Peace and Literature Prizes as complete and
utter jokes.
|
Reply 32 -
Posted by: Dreadnought, 11/22/2003 3:23:12
AM
Here's how
the NY Times covers it in their Saturday
editions: Pulitzer Board Won't Void '32
Award to Times Writer.
|
Reply 33 -
Posted by: thelady2, 11/22/2003 6:34:29
AM
Pulitzer and
Noble Peace prize. Same Politcal Hacks.
By the way who else out there is tired of the
24/7 Kennedy?
|
Reply 34 -
Posted by: Coral Pink, 11/22/2003 6:43:08
AM
Here is what
I think is going on: There is so much bad and
bogus journalism out there, things we don't
even know about, that the Pulitzer Committee
realizes that Duranty would be only the
beginning. After Duranty, others lies would
roll out of the woodwork and the Pulitzer
Committe doesn't want that going on. If it
was only about Duranty, it would probably be
easy to revoke the thing.
|
Reply 35 -
Posted by: Coral Pink, 11/22/2003 6:48:30
AM
Mr.
Sulzberger, in a cover letter submitting the
historian's report to the board, acknowledged
that Mr. Duranty's work had been
"slovenly," but he argued that
revoking the prize might evoke the
"Stalinist practice to airbrush purged
figures out of official records and
histories." He also wrote that "the
board would be setting a precedent for
revisiting its judgments over many
decades."
So there is nothing wrong with 'slovenly'
reporting, Pinch? And what is 'slovenly,' by
the way? Do you write the opposite of what
you see with your own eyes? Kind of an
understatement on 'slovenly.'
The last sentence of the article confirms
what their real fears are.
|
Reply 36 -
Posted by: Coral Pink, 11/22/2003 6:53:54
AM
The
'airbrush' statement, by the way, turns logic
on its head and is incredibly insulting to
the memory of the victims. I can't read that
without feeling a lump of anger in my throat.
No, taking away Duranty's award wouldn't
'airbrush' Duranty from history, as Pinch so
vacuously claims. It would make Duranty only
more well-known and infamous for his special
kind of dishonesty. It would hold him (and
the ideological groupthink of the Pulitzer
Committee) up to the scrutiny of history.
Letting him keep his award is what
'airbrushes' the liar from history. Nobody
cares about old Pulitzer prize winner lists.
Where is the reporter who would turn down the
award out of principle, not wanting to be in
Duranty's company?
|
Reply 37 -
Posted by: Foggybottom, 11/22/2003 7:04:46
AM
It doesn't
surprise me that the Pulitzer committee
didn't revoke dead Duranty's tainted prize.
For pete's sake, the Pulitzer committee is
stacked with Leftists. Molly Ivins is on the
committee for example.
|
Reply 38 -
Posted by: Simple Simon, 11/22/2003 8:11:39
AM
I find it odd
that many folks hang on to the retribution or
revelation of scurrilious activity. poor
decisions and evil people n statements like
"history will tell..." or the
"legacy will show...".
History will be whatever the left makes of
it. I'm sure there were those smarter than I
who told McCarthy "history will show you
were a brave and honorable American..."
I haven't quite formulated my own theory on
this yet, but any liberal person I've run
across in person, on tv or radio has a
problem isolating fact from feeling. Facts
can always change feelings, but feelings will
never change facts. I'd bet liberals have a
disorder where the synapsis seperating the
logical and emotional halves of the brain are
handicapped and they are trapped by emotions
- damning all facts.
On the other hand, the same goes for
conservatives who cannot process any feeling.
I'd put folks like Saddam, Stalin, Hitler in
this group.
Anyone ever seen or heard anything like this
and refer me to some more research or advice?
|
Reply 39 -
Posted by: frodocasey, 11/22/2003 8:13:59
AM
Right on
Reply #2, you have it exactly correct.
|
