In response to:

Those Cheapened Pulitzer 'Prizes'

Anonymous16936 Wrote: Apr 25, 2012 12:56 PM
When Obama walked off with one P.P. for "what they perceived he was going to do in the future" when doing actually nothing - it lost all credibility for me. I don't even read the 'winners' now. Not interest in anymore 'fakes'. So tired of having these so called leaders lie to me. They should save their time for watching reality tv.
5Mentarios Wrote: Apr 25, 2012 1:07 PM
That would be the NOBEL prize. These are PULITZER prizes. Try to stay on topic.
The Obama Timeline author Wrote: Apr 25, 2012 3:17 PM
By P.P. he meant Nobel "peace prize." There is room enough to criticize two awards for being meaningless leftist pats on the back.
Once upon a time, it meant something for a reporter to be called a "Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist." The prestige of this designation is quickly eroding. The 2012 Pulitzer Prizes looked less like an excellence-in-media competition and more like an exercise in leftist self-affirmation. No prize established this more strongly than the coveted National Reporting prize going to ... The Huffington Post.

The Pulitzer judges who would rather swallow rat poison than give an award to a conservative outlet, such as The Washington Times, are bestowing kudos on a site that thrives on such celebrity dreck as "Miley Shows Off Legs in...