GET OVER IT ALREADY
A Wall Street Journal story titled "Pulitzer Competition to Consider Online Content From Newspapers" is important to note. It highlights:
"The board that awards the Pulitzer Prizes said Wednesday that newspapers can now enter material published online in each category of the prestigious competition, an acknowledgment of the growing influence of Internet journalism.
The board, however, said it would continue to limit the competition to newspapers that publish a print edition, rather than allow entries by online-only publications such as Slate, Salon, MSNBC.com or the many blogs that proliferate on the Web. Some online journalists argued the board needs to further expand the scope of the Pulitzers, the most revered awards in American print journalism."
While the Pulitzer Prizes should be complimented on their decisions on taking this half step, they should also be called out for NOT taking the full step.
In the Internet-everywhere world we're racing towards, exceptional journalism will emerge both online and off. To require that online sites have a print edition to be eligible is a little like the TV censors of the fifties requiring that one foot always remain on the floor when a couple is being televised together in bed.
What's next, "No Emmy's for online-only entertainment programs?"
As Jennifer Sizemore, deputy editor for news for MSNBC.com pithily observes in the WSJ article:
"...the Pulitzer board's decision is "a mere nod to the present," but "hardly a bold move into the future." Ultimately, the board will have to decide if the Pulitzers "are awards for newspapers, or if they are awards for journalism."
At one level, this decision to exclude pure online journalists seems almost as politically driven and short-sighted as the FDA decision last year on Plan B.
It's ironic that this is occurring as the print media continues to race online. As Jeff Jarvis notes in a separate post:
"Business Week is abandoning print for its international editions to emphasize online instead"
The good news is that the Pulitzer Prizes do eventually make the right decisions over time. Some readers may remember last year's controversy when they awarded a Pulitzer Prize to Dan Neil of the LA Times, who, as some of the traditional print publishers GASPED, reviewed automobiles for the paper. Not a TRUE journalist at all, they said.
Every mainstream media profession is going to have to slowly but surely overcome it's sense of superiority and instinctual proclivity to discriminate against their peers who practice their trade purely online.
That's where the eyeballs are rapidly going, with mainstream dollars soon to follow.
As usual great thoughts Michael. Keep up the excellent work!
Posted by: Michael Bayler | Thursday, December 08, 2005 at 04:06 AM