Let's start with movies. The Oscar Hall of Shame is a crowded place.
Take 1976. The nominees for best picture included such standouts as Taxi Driver, Network and All the President's Men. The winner? Rocky!!??! Enjoyable hokum, sure, but (and I say this as a Philly guy), really?
And Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas? Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction. Are you kidding me?
The Grammys have had their share of lowlights as well. Take 1979, when disco's A Taste of Honey edged out some guy named Elvis Costello for best new artist. And two words: Milli Vanilli.
Journalism awards, of course, don't quite attract the attention of the pop culture prizes. No red carpets. No endless speculating on who will win. But while not nearly as sexy, they play an important role in the field. And they also trigger their share of debates. Among them: Do news outlets pay too much attention and devote too much firepower to pursuing awards at the expense of day-in, day-out reporting that is essential to their communities? Are some of those multipart extravaganzas with their endless, intimidating seas of gray type aimed more at fellow journalists than readers?
We're now in the midst of journalism awards season. On Sunday, Long Island University announced the winners of its George Polk Awards. And while much outstanding work was honored, two particular awards jumped out at me.
In the national security category, the Oscar went to Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Laura Poitras, writing for Britain's Guardian newspaper, and Bart Gellman, writing for The Washington Post, for their articles on rampant National Security Agency surveillance. Their articles were based on classified documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Snowden's actions, and the work of the journalists reporting on his revelations, have been hig! hly controversial. While there's no denying that the disclosures have triggered a national debate over government snooping that even President Obama said he welcomed, Snowden has no shortage of detractors who think he's a traitor. And the messengers have come under fire, too. Meet the Press host David Gregory — a fellow journalist, no less — asked Greenwald, the poet laureate of the Snowden saga, "Why shouldn't you be charged with a crime?"
And that's why awards matter. Being honored by a prestigious jury of their peers ratifies the value of the important work these journalists have done. And that work is valuable to society at large, not just insiders. In this case, the award says these reporters are heroes, not outlaws.
Similarly, the Polk judges honored Shawn Boburg of The Record in Bergen County, N.J., for his work in September on the much-ballyhooed lane closings at the George Washington Bridge in Fort Lee. Boburg's shoe-leather reporting set the table for the stories on the involvement of top aides to Gov. Chris Christie.
Much of the important, yet decidedly unglamorous work of journalism is carried out by local reporters monitoring the nitty-gritty of daily life. Buffeted by the challenges of the digital age, many traditional news outlets have cut back on their reporting rosters. Recognizing such work is an excellent way of underscoring its immense value.
While the Polk is a prestigious award, the big kahuna of journalism accolades is, of course, the mighty Pulitzer. This year's Pulitzers will be announced on April 14.
The number of Pulitzers won does not necessarily correlate with the overall excellence of a news outlet. But it's a hint. It also is a source of prestige and a valuable weapon for building the brand of news organizations and journalists alike.
The fact that The Philadelphia Inquirer under Gene Roberts won 17 Pulitzers in 18 years symbolized vividly the fact that the paper had been transformed from a subpar daily into a journalistic jewel.
The f! act that The New York Times won 18 Pulitzers under Bill Keller reflects the fact that Keller not only calmed the waters after the Times' turbulent Howell Raines era, but the paper was at the same time doing some excellent work.
One of the more improbable Pulitzers was the one racked up in 2010 for investigative reporting by Barbara Laker and Wendy Ruderman of the Philadelphia Daily News, a small, understaffed, indomitable tabloid perpetually threatened with extinction. Laker and Ruderman won for their courageous reporting on rampant corruption in the Philadelphia police department.
Top 5 Performing Companies To Buy Right Now
I asked Laker what winning the Pulitzer had meant to her.
"As much as we, as reporters, say we don't write stories to win awards, deep down, they do matter to us," she replied via e-mail. "They validate our work and say that it's important — a cut above the rest. In some cases, the award says your work shed light on wrongdoing and forced change. That's a sentiment every journalist wants to feel. You never forget it."
No comments:
Post a Comment