Duranty's Pulitzer won't be revoked

[Joe]

Fucking rats

[Vympel]

The board determined that there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case

That's fine by me. It is not justified to revoke a Pulitzer in light of information that the subject has not been proven to have at the time. As preposterous as it sounds, the 1930s Soviet Union was not well known, these Ukranian's outraged no-proof assertions nonwithstanding- and the articles for which he was awarded the prize happened *before* the famine.

[Graeme Dice]

Fucking rats

So are you saying that people should be held responsible for not reporting events that have not yet taken place? I guess if you believe in psychics that might be a reasonable take.

[Nathan F]

Fucking rats

So are you saying that people should be held responsible for not reporting events that have not yet taken place? I guess if you believe in psychics that might be a reasonable take.

If you'd read the article, you would see that he was a reporter throughout the time this was happening, covering the Soviets, but didn't 'bother' to tell anyone about it.

[Graeme Dice]

If you'd read the article, you would see that he was a reporter throughout the time this was happening, covering the Soviets, but didn't 'bother' to tell anyone about it.

I did read it. He was given the Pulitzer in 1931, before the mass starvation in the Ukraine. While he may not have been given a Pulitzer today, this is irrelevant. Revoking it seven decades after the fact is nothing more than revisionist history at work.

[Nathan F]

If you'd read the article, you would see that he was a reporter throughout the time this was happening, covering the Soviets, but didn't 'bother' to tell anyone about it.

I did read it. He was given the Pulitzer in 1931, before the mass starvation in the Ukraine. While he may not have been given a Pulitzer today, this is irrelevant. Revoking it seven decades after the fact is nothing more than revisionist history at work.

So, revoking someone's Pulitzer because they failed to report on something that they, by all standards of journalism, should have reported on, and something that was as large of a scale as the Ukranian famine, is now revisionist history? Well, if that's revisionist history, then not revoking it is by all means Stalinist apologetics.

[Graeme Dice]

So, revoking someone's Pulitzer because they failed to report on something that they, by all standards of journalism, should have reported on, and something that was as large of a scale as the Ukranian famine, is now revisionist history? Well, if that's revisionist history, then not revoking it is by all means Stalinist apologetics.

He couldn't have reported on the Ukrainian famine at the time he won his Pulitzer, as it had not happened yet. Whether he reported on it afterwards doesn't really enter into the equation.

[Andrew J.]

So, revoking someone's Pulitzer because they failed to report on something that they, by all standards of journalism, should have reported on, and something that was as large of a scale as the Ukranian famine, is now revisionist history? Well, if that's revisionist history, then not revoking it is by all means Stalinist apologetics.

Pulitzer's are given for specific works, not lifetime achievements. I could win a Pulitzer and write the worst crap anyone had ever seen afterwards, and there'd be nothing anyone could do about it.