As is now customary with Pulitzer Prize announcements, readers have been greeted with a deluge of self-congratulatory and preening pieces by media outlets about their various successes. But despite all the glitz and glamour associated with journalism’s most famous prize, not all of the previous winners have been quite so illustrious.
To this point, the New York Times has received almost twice as many Pulitzers as its next closest competitor, the Washington Post (a statistic that in itself should raise some questions). Accordingly, many of the paper’s most high-profile Pulitzer wins illustrate not just how wrong the Pulitzer Center often is, but, much more importantly, its intransigence amid calls for the return of ill-gotten prizes.
Below are a few of the most egregious examples of the New York Times Pulitzers that should never have been awarded and still have not been rescinded.
1. Walter Duranty — Soviet Russia, 1932
Walter Duranty was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his work denying the reality of the Ukraine Famine, a genocide created by Stalin. In 2003, the Ukrainian-American community issued calls for the New York Times to return the Pulitzer, a call endorsed by a historical consultant the newspaper hired to make an independent assessment.
Despite this, the paper’s publisher refused to return the prize — and the Pulitzer Center concurred. After studying the issue for six months, the Center decided it would not rescind the Duranty Pulitzer, averring that — despite Duranty’s own admission to the contrary — there was “no clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception”.
2. Otto Tolischus — Nazi Germany, 1940
Otto Tolischus was a New York Times’ Berlin correspondent who, on the eve of the Second World War incorrectly reported that Poland had attacked Germany. This report, which would shape American public perception of the early days of the war, had devastating consequences, giving Hitler the initiative he needed to start his campaign of conquest in Europe.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeRead Rindsberg’s book: THE GRAY LADY WINKED. The NYT has spread fake news for nearly 100 years.
I’ve been assured by the smartest people in the world that calling out stories from esteemed news sources as ‘fake news’ is dangerous, possibly racist, and a sign of extreme narcissism. The truth is what they say it is, end of story. I love Big Brother.
The bigger the lie, the more they praise you. The Pulitzer is a prize for the faithless and the foul.
Yes indeed, and the same is true of the NYT
Thanks to Ashey Rindsberg for this retrospective. It’s interesting to learn that it is not just recently that the NYT has been in the business of misinformation, and that its reputation as being “the paper of record” has long been undeserved.
Yes, the ‘paper of record’ is so out-of-date, it actually sounds like a charming blast-from-the-past slogan. Today’s proliferation of news outlets where a multitude of perspectives can be read has made the NYTimes just one more voice and a rather inaccurate, ideological one at that, I.e. not news but propaganda.
How did the NYT fare on Cambodia during Pol Pot?
Though I guess not blatant enough to make the list, some of the New York Times reports on Russian interference in the 2016 election were misleading in their implications if not in their facts.
Coverage by the New York Times (and the Washington Post, which won a Pulitzer this year for it) of the January 6, 2021 riot at the US Capitol was equally trumped up to target Donald Trump.
On the other hand the winners of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, are more often than not a damn good read and probably contain more truths than the efforts of those above.
What a disappointment the NYT is. To think I used to follow them (hangs head in shame).
You should do penance by avoiding that shark infested beach of yours for 40 days.
Inclusion of William Laurence in this hall of infamy is questionable, according to this nuanced take: https://undark.org/2017/08/09/atomic-bill-laurence-manhattan-project/
Certainly the pendulum about perceived and actual dangers of radiation sickness has swung way too far in the other direction. In this sense Laurence was closer to the truth than many others. https://aeon.co/ideas/fear-of-radiation-is-more-dangerous-than-radiation-itself
That “nuanced take” you refer to is worth reading but it doesn’t in any way diminish Ashley Rindsberg’s argument (you can see his own more nuanced and very detailed account in his book on “The Gray Lady”). Laurence’s reporting betrayed his journalistic calling. For Gray Lady journalists, the equivalent of a physician’s hippocratic oath could be described not unreasonably as a hypocritical oath.
It’s a shame that after 90 years, the Pulitzer Board still refuses to revoke Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer Prize. Duranty knew of the artificial famine induced by Stalin on the Ukrainian farmers that caused anywhere from 7 to 10 million deaths, yet he concealed the truth in order to continue having access to Stalin and received a lavish lifestyle in Moscow in return. He was complicit to this genocide yet he was given the noblest of all prizes for his writing by the Pulitzer Board.
I have no doubts that most of these award’s winners made mistakes (i.e. involuntarily) or had their own bias which distorted their views (like it does to us all). I’d just like to point out that the award takes a wider view at the production of the journalist and even if they committed gross errors, as Mr Rindsberg correctly points out, they also produced brilliant pages of journalism, often in clear contradiction of the pollitically correct opinion of the times and more so against government’s propaganda (and blatant lies). In summary, pointing only to their mistakes -or deceptions, and ignoring the rest of their good work is quite unfair . Halberstam (as Sheehan) lie, in my view in this category.
You can’t sincerely defend the 1619 Project on this basis.