....January 6th Coverage begets a Pulitzer Prize....

[Chillicothe]

I'd be a bit concerned about bias... I dunno, maybe it's just me.

Well, that is a valid comment.
I'd recommend you seek out WaPo's coverage, read it, and then report your observations back to this venue.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

I'm sure, by now, most here have seen the reportage on the Washington Post earning a Pulitzer prize for their coverage of the January 6th attack on our Democracy.

I read all of their reporting, and studied their maps and illustrations.
It is good stuff and I would highly recommend it to all participants here for a measured and fulsome (at that time) explanation of what happened during those dynamic hours.

Also, of note the New York Times also won a Pulitzer today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW YORK — The Washington Post won the Pulitzer Prize in public service journalism Monday for its coverage of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, an attack on democracy that was a shocking start to a tumultuous year that also saw the end of the United States’ longest war, in Afghanistan.

The Post’s extensive reporting, published in a sophisticated interactive series, found numerous problems and failures in political systems and security before, during and after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot in the newspaper’s own backyard.

Jan. 6 coverage wins Pulitzer's public service prize

Coverage of the fall of Afghanistan also nets top awards.

www.politico.com

So did "Russian Collusion". We all saw how that turned out didn't we?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Awards have become nothing more than a circle jerk for progressives looking for affirmation & validation from the reach around crowd

Once Obama received his Nobel for doing literally nothing and Pulitzer started passing out prizes for hoaxes it was over.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Just looney liberals awarding a prize to another group of looney liberals. ...

Nothing but a back slapping partisan circle jerk.

 

[Chillicothe]

They received awards for reporting on a hoax.

Now, admittedly, this may just be me, but......but I watched that January 6th attack on the telly as it was happening.
I'm not sure I sreally happening.
In fact, I am deadsolidperfectly convinced it happened.
But you be you, good poster Lastamender.
If it was a hoax in your eyes, so be it.

 

[Chillicothe]

Good job of lying.

After reading the reportage, good poster Jones.....well, what part did they lie about?
And what you thought were "lies"....well, could it have been merely different eyes seeing the same action or actors?

 

[Chillicothe]

Awards have become nothing more than a circle jerk for progressives looking for affirmation & validation from the reach around crowd

Can you explain why you have come to that belief?
And do you think it applies to the Pulitzer Prize in general?
Or just in this specific award to the Washington Post's coverage of the attack on the Capitol?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Well, that is a valid comment.
I'd recommend you seek out WaPo's coverage, read it, and then report your observations back to this venue.

Since it's paywalled that's less than likely.

 

[Chillicothe]

can't write so that it is clear what they're reporting, hell they don't even bother to get the facts straight...they don't even know what facts are anymore. They sure as hell can't spell. Often you can't find a byline...date, location, anything that would help.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that is sad, poster Jones, that the journalism you choose to expose yourself to doesn't meet your criteria for best practices.

Yet, you must feel a need to be informed. So, what sources do you use or would you recommend to the users of USMB in order to be informed?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that is sad, poster Jones, that the journalism you choose to expose yourself to doesn't meet your criteria for best practices.

Yet, you must feel a need to be informed. So, what sources do you use or would you recommend to the users of USMB in order to be informed?

What, "Best Practices" in journalism include publishing hoaxes as fact?

 

[Chillicothe]

Just looney liberals awarding a prize to another group of looney liberals

Well, after reading the Post's coverage of the January 6th attacks, that is the conclusion you came to?
Or, have you not yet read it?

 

[Chillicothe]

Didn’t they also win some awards for reporting on Russian collusion?

-----------------------------------------------
Yes, the Post did, as did the New York Times.
After you read both paper's reportage on the Russian/Trump nexus, poster blackhawk....did you think it was informative?

 

[CowboyTed]

You can laugh but what work did you actually do to prove any of there actually wrong...

Sweat Fuck All...

You sat your fat arse in front of your favourite disinformation site/channel and force fed a diet of lovely sounding bullshit.. That's the difference...

Ye try and proclaim the Election was stolen but can't find any real proof... All the so called evidence was quickly thrown out of court. Even Trump's own legal team could say it in court because there evidence was so weak/non existent that

 

[Chillicothe]

I'll file this shit propaganda

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After you read the Post's extensive coverage of the events of the January 6th attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters.....did you still think it was "propaganda"?

Can you explain why?

And if the Post's coverage doesn't meet your standards....well, what sources of news would you recommend to the users of USMB?

 

[Chillicothe]

Well of course, it's the greatest thing the Washington Compost has done since the
Watergate NOTHINGBURGER.

Well, of all the replies so far to the OP, this one seems somewhat notable.
I mean by that, the Watergate scandal....and the Washington Post's role in reporting on it.....was what?....over 50years ago?

Still, they did win the Pulitzer for their extensive coverage. Here is a list of their reportage that was cited by the Pulitzer jury:

WINNING WORK​

August 1, 1972
Bug Suspect Got Campaign Funds

September 17, 1972
Spy Funds Linked to GOP Aides

September 18, 1972
2 Linked To Secret GOP Fund

September 20, 1972
Watergate Data Destruction Charged

September 29, 1972
Mitchell Controlled Secret GOP Fund

October 6, 1972
Bug Memos Sent to Nixon Aides

October 6, 1972
$100,000 Gift to Nixon Campaign Is Traced to Texas Corporation

October 10, 1972
FBI Finds Nixon Aides Sabotaged Democrats

October 15, 1972
Key Nixon Aide Named As ‘Sabotage’ Contact

 

[Chillicothe]

Pulitzer started passing out prizes for hoaxes it was over.

Which "hoaxes" did the Pulitzer jury award prizes to?
And why do you describe them as hoaxes?
What reportage can you cite that is a credible revelation that they were 'hoaxes'?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Which "hoaxes" did the Pulitzer jury award prizes to?
And why do you describe them as hoaxes?
What reportage can you cite that is a credible revelation that they were 'hoaxes'?

To actually, the first being the heroin addict hoax and the second the Russian Collusion Hoax by the NYT.

They haven't had the guts to demand the second be returned yet.

 

[Chillicothe]

So did "Russian Collusion". We all saw how that turned out didn't we?

Well, as mentioned earlier in this thread both the New York Times and the Washington Post were awarded Pulitzer Prizes for their coverage of the Russian/Trump nexus in the 2016 campaign.

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that the poster above, and others here, seemingly believe that because Robert Mueller didn't assertively claim Trump and his campaign committed an indictable offense (he cited DOJ policy and left the decision to the AG, William Barr.)...well, that seemingly leads some to believe all the reportage from those two newspapers was 'a hoax'.

I would suggest to all then, that you go back and read some of the reportage (the Times was particularly excellent. Maggie Halberman nailed it and nailed, time and time again. ) and compare that to the Mueller Report. It appears the Times got it right. Bill Barr got it wrong.

IMHO

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Well, as mentioned earlier in this thread both the New York Times and the Washington Post were awarded Pulitzer Prizes for their coverage of the Russian/Trump nexus in the 2016 campaign.

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that the poster above, and others here, seemingly believe that because Robert Mueller didn't assertively claim Trump and his campaign committed an indictable offense (he cited DOJ policy and left the decision to the AG, William Barr.)...well, that seemingly leads some to believe all the reportage from those two newspapers was 'a hoax'.

I would suggest to all then, that you go back and read some of the reportage (the Times was particularly excellent. Maggie Halberman nailed it and nailed, time and time again. ) and compare that to the Mueller Report. It appears the Times got it right. Bill Barr got it wrong.

IMHO

There was no Russian collusion, it was a hoax, get a grip on reality already.

 

[Oddball]

You sat your fat arse in front of your favourite disinformation site/channel and force fed a diet of lovely sounding bullshit.. That's the difference...

Turn the self-awareness dial down to "0" and the projection dial up to "11"!