By:
July 31, 2002

A PULITZER MOMENT STRUCK ME when Seymour Topping, Prize administrator, huddled with Gene Roberts, chairman of my judging group. I looked up, bleary eyed from hours of reading, and thought about the two men.



Topping, distinguished in a gray suit, blue shirt, and a cascade of white hair, leaned over Roberts, dark-haired, wearing glasses, and more casual in a pinstriped shirt. Between them spanned nearly 100 years of journalism experience, Topping as a foreign correspondent, Roberts as a civil rights reporter, both as managing editors of The New York Times.


Around us in two large conference rooms at Columbia University sat publishers, editors, and educators gathered at 14 tables, each piled high with newspaper entries. On the wall in one room hung a large painting of the bespectacled, serious Joseph Pulitzer.

As a first time judge, I was most impressed with the dedication of my peers as we waded through entries. Over 100 filled my group’s table. Story topics ranged from medicines that are failing, to treatment of the mentally ill, to companies that are causing injuries, and of course, crime and the legal system.

As the first day progressed, over half of the entries had been tossed to the floor, failing to impress multiple judges. We were looking for worthy topics, thorough reporting, engaging writing, and some indication of impact.


By the end of the second day, the challenge was picking the best from the very good work. Debate occupied most of the third morning.


Of our final three choices, one stood out as superior; one felt right; the third divided us. I didn’t think it rated as a finalist. It was about number 25 on my list. Another judge was more adamantly against it than I was, but the five others overruled us. By noon we completed our nominations for the Pulitzer Board.


SO WHAT DID I LEARN from my time as a Pulitzer jury member? Here are a few notes:


  • Quality Rises — We might have missed a stunning piece, but I doubt it. We read the good, the bad, and the should-never-have-been entered, and came to a remarkable degree of general agreement on the top stories.


  • Raising the Bar — The award for best writing should go to some editors’ nominating letters. Most entries were preceded by a page or two from the editor explaining why this was the top story. Some of us stopped reading the letters, having faith that the story could actually explain itself. And the letters complicated judging. They were often so much better than the stories that they unfairly raised the bar for the piece that followed.


  • Beating Back the Top Dogs — I often wondered why the same newspapers seemed to win over and over. As a judge, I found the answer. They are better. My heart longed to pick a small paper, a seldom-regarded paper. Some had good entries, but overall the big, usual winners presented stories that far excelled those in other papers.


  • The Wrapper Award — Judging an entry isn’t about picking up some newsprint and reading a few pages. No, it’s much more than that. Entries come in stocky scrapbooks, neatly pressed folders, and retyped full pages. Some open with 8X10 glossies of the reporters in addition to the aforementioned letters. In at least one case, the preamble was longer than the story.


  • And As for Diversity — It was there among the judges. It was there in the topics. It was barely there among the nominated writers in my category. The photos of writers helped make the lack of diversity obvious.




  • We Ran Hot and Cold — The first day the two rooms felt good. The second day one was hot, and on the other end of the hall the room was cold. By noon a maintenance person came into the hot room and pronounced the solution was to close the blinds. Apparently he did more than that. By the end of the day many of us wore coats while reading. The third morning you knew things were bad when the editor from North Dakota announced he was grabbing his coat. The problem was a remodeled building. All was well before we ended.


    Is judging the Pulitzers serious business? I’d say it is.



    I came into the process with few expectations and more curiosity. After the judging, I came away with the feeling that hope springs eternal in journalism.


    Topping said it best when referring to the entries in my category: “When you look at the reports, you have to be impressed at American journalism.”


     





    Journalism Winners


    Public Service The Washington Post for stories by Katherine Boo that disclosed neglect and abuse in the city’s group homes for the mentally retarded.


    Breaking News Reporting The staff of The Denver Post for coverage of the Columbine High School student massacre.


    Investigative Reporting The Associated Press for its series uncovering the alleged mass killings of South Korean civilians by American troops at the start of the Korean War.


    Explanatory Reporting Eric Newhouse of the Great Falls (Mont.) Tribune for his stories on alcohol abuse and the problems it creates in the community.


    Beat Reporting George Dohrmann of the St. Paul Pioneer Press for stories about academic fraud in the University of Minnesota men’s basketball program.


    National Reporting The Wall Street Journal staff for coverage of U.S. defense spending and military deployment in the post-Cold War era.


    International Reporting The Village Voice, a New York City weekly, for Mark Schoofs’ series on the AIDS crisis in Africa.


    Feature Writing went to The Los Angeles Times for J.R. Moehringer’s portrait of Gee’s Bend, an isolated Alabama river community where many descendants of slaves live.

    Commentary The Wall Street Journal for Paul Gigot’s columns on politics and government.


    Criticism The Washington Post’s Henry Allen for his writing on photography.


    Editorial Writing John C. Bersia of The Orlando Sentinel for editorials against predatory lending practices in the state.


    Editorial Cartooning Joel Pett of the Lexington Herald-Leader in Kentucky.


    Breaking News Photography The Denver Rocky Mountain News photo staff for pictures taken after the Columbine shooting.


    Feature Photography to Carol Guzy, Michael Williamson, and Lucian Perkins of The Washington Post for pictures of the Kosovo refugees.

    Support high-integrity, independent journalism that serves democracy. Make a gift to Poynter today. The Poynter Institute is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, and your gift helps us make good journalism better.
    Donate
    Karen Brown Dunlap
    Karen B. Dunlap is president of The Poynter Institute. She is also the co-author, with Foster Davis, of "The Effective Editor."
    Karen Brown Dunlap

    More News

    Back to News