The blatant bias and conflict of interest for the Pulitzer Prize

When Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, it sent shockwaves through Washington.  For the first time in modern U.S. history, an individual had won the highest office purely on grassroots support and by challenging the Washington Democrat-led establishment.

Trump was a threat to the status quo in Washington.  The establishment knew they not only had to personally denigrate him, but also delegitimize his victory to prolong their relevance.

They first concocted the Trump-Russian Collusion hoax.  The mainstream media amplified the lie with their breathless coverage.  The proponents of this hoax couldn't tell how Russia meddled with the ballots or how the votes were altered; they just knew it had happened.  If you asked questions, you were accused of spreading "Russian disinformation."

The cacophony caused the appointment of a special counsel.

For the next two years, the media hysterically covered "leaks" from the office of the special counsel.  With every leak, they claimed that "the walls are closing in on President Trump."  This was a daily occurrence.  If you followed their coverage, you would not be blamed for believing that it was not a question of if, but when Trump would be forced to resign in shame. 

The hoax cost $32 million in taxpayer money and caused more than two years of uncertainty.  It probably cost the GOP the midterms in 2019.

In the end, the report came out, and there was no evidence of collusion.  President Trump was obviously found not guilty.

The media should have felt embarrassed to be proven so egregiously erroneous for such a prolonged period.  They should have issued groveling apologies to all, beginning with President Trump.  They should have promised instant remedial action and pledged to improve.

But nothing even remotely such as that occurred.  Upon being exposed as hoaxers, they merely moved on, as if nothing had occurred.  Some insisted that there was collusion, but Trump was sly enough to cover his tracks from Mueller.

Instead of being punished for their bogus reporting, the prime propagators of the hoax won one of these most prestigious prizes for journalism.

In 2018, both the New York Times and the Washington Post were awarded the Pulitzer "for deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation's understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the president-elect's transition team and his eventual administration."

Among the members of the Pulitzer Board was past Pulitzer-winner Carlos Lozada, non-fiction book critic and associate editor at the Washington Post.  That is to say, an employee of the Post was among the jury to award the Post.

Despite their spurious reporting being exposed, both the Post and the Times continue to hold the awards. 

This year, the Washington Post won the Pulitzer Prize again, this time for its coverage of the Jan. 6 protests that went overboard, causing the fracas at the Capitol.

The NYT also won for both its national and international reporting.  Rutgers University–Newark professor Salamishah Tillet was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in criticism for her New York Times essays on race in arts and culture.

Among the members of the Pulitzer Board were Gail Collins, opinion columnist at the New York Times, and Carlos Lozada, non-fiction book critic and associate editor at the Washington Post.

Hence, a jury including employees for the Washington Post and the NYT voted to award the Pulitzer to the Post and the NYT.

These, and the 2018 award, were clear cases of conflicts of interest. 

But we are living in times where neither the Pulitzer nor the media care about being fair.  Worse, they do not even care to appear fair or hide their conflict of interest from the outside world. 

If there is any accomplishment of liberals that is worth studying, it is how they managed to build their establishment by hijacking various organizations.  Today, administrative and government agencies, educational institutes, corporate houses, NGOs, showbiz,  intergovernmental organizations, the media, and even juries for prestigious prizes have been co-opted by the left.

The Pulitzer wins for the WaPo and NYT mean that if individuals merely adhere to the establishment groupthink, they can be rich and successful, and they can also win awards.  Talent or skill or hard work or bravery or independence is not needed.  They do not have to deliver anything extraordinary.  They just have to follow conventional orders and function as stenographers to the establishment. 

The coverage of the Trump Russia Hoax and the Jan. 6 protests didn't require reporting from perilous war zones in search of the truth.  There was no analysis or deduction of a complex political scandal or a financial scam.  The reportage was based on leaks, conjectures, overstatements, and blatant falsehoods.

Once upon a time, journalists existed to hold the powerful accountable.  The mistrust of authority should be inherent among journalists.  They always maintained a safe distance from the powers that be in order to be able to cover a subject fairly. 

Those days are over.

In current times, journalism is chosen as a profession merely to climb up the hierarchy and rub shoulders with the powerful.  The journalists turn into loyal terriers for the powerful.  They crawl when asked to bend and prostrate themselves when asked to crawl.  

When they have served their master faithfully, a biscuit is tossed in their direction in the form of a Pulitzer, which they proudly flaunt.

What an unmitigated disgrace.

Image: Vladimir Babenko via Wikimedia CommonsCC BY-SA 4.0.

If you experience technical problems, please write to