<![CDATA[Gawker: valleywag, joshua micah marshall]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: valleywag, joshua micah marshall]]> http://gawker.com/tag/valleywag/joshuamicahmarshall http://gawker.com/tag/valleywag/joshuamicahmarshall <![CDATA[Why bloggers should rejoice at being passed up for the Pulitzers]]> When will the Pulitzer committee allow online reporting to be considered for an award? People have been asking that question for more than a decade. But blog-sympathizing critics of the prize really need to ask is whether including online news would make a difference in who won.

The Pulitzer Prize is a curious award to seek. It rewards obtuse articles on public policy, favoring newspapers with expansive Washington bureaus and reporters with D.C. connections. That's not a game that pageview-seeking online reporters particularly care to play. But if they did? They wouldn't likely win. Consider a list of online stories some sources suggested as Pulitzer-worthy:

  • Matt Drudge's breaking of the Newsweek spike of Isikoff's Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky story

  • Charles Johnson of Little Green Football's debunking of the George Bush Air National Guard memos

  • The Smoking Gun's debunking of author James Frey's memoir

  • Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo's reporting on the U.S. attorney-firing scandal

Marshall's post comes closest; it won him a Polk award. But online reporters would do well to ignore the Pulitzers, rather than froth about their exclusion. They can reach an audience far larger than a parochial newspaper. And if they do manage to influence policy with their reporting? That in itself should be the prize.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=377496&view=rss&microfeed=true