Today in the PBS MediaShift blog, Simon Owens digs further into the recent announcement that the Pulitzer Prize Board will now consider entries from online-only news organizations in all 14 of its journalism categories.
Owens asked Pulitzer administrator Sig Gissler to define which sorts of online venues actually qualify as Pulitzer entrants. Owens said that according to Gissler, “the burden of proof lies on the news organization to provide ample evidence that it meets all the qualifications for the award.”
Owens then asked whether sites like Salon, Slate and the Huffington Post would qualify. He quoted Gissler as responding, “I’m not sure if they all qualify. I think you have to determine if they’re primarily original news reporting. We’re really trying to push the burden on the entrants and not try to sit here and speculate about an entry that may or may not be let in.”
Also, Owens reports that Gissler did confirm that hypothetically a blog could qualify.
The story includes an intriguing roundup of reactions from editors of various leading online-only news venues. A couple of quotes that caught my attention were:
Salon editor Joan Walsh: “I think we’ll look closely at the requirements and we’ll look at whether it makes sense to make a pitch. I still think they’re being a little bit — what word do I want to be quoted using — prissy comes to mind. Prissy and backward-looking, sort of putting it on us to make the case that we qualify rather than having an open-minded come-all approach.”
Slate editor David Plotz: “We’ve already reached a point where journalism has effectively recognized that great reporting is done online, that any media outlet has to publish its best work online, and publish it before it appears in print or on the air. …It’s so obvious to everyone in the business; [online] is ground zero for where journalistic innovation is taking place, where growth is, where the most vigorous competition is. And the prizes follow that; they don’t lead it.”
The entire article is well worth reading.
What do you think of this shift from the Pulitzer Board, and of the ambiguity Owens highlighted? Please comment below.
