How To Recycle Your Way To A Pulitzer
Riehl World View has an absolutely astonishing post up. It asks a pretty simple question: is the story that won Dana Priest a Pulitzer simply a rehashed bit of old news spun in a new way?
The answer would appear to be a definitive yes. What's disturbing here is that the Washington Post archive of the 2002 story can't seem to be found. If this is a "down the memory hole" moment, they screwed up. Other places cached the story.
And just as a matter of curiosity, why is it that the above article is no longer available at the Washington Post on line? Archiving, most likely. At least I hope so. Fortunately, a web site archived the article, as did others - just not the Washington Post. Is it possible the story didn't get the traction and cause the hearings some might have thought before the 2004 election?
Frankly, this looks like it might be more than a bit embarrassing for the Pulitzer committee, don't you think?
Blogosphere, Media | Gaius Thursday, 27 April , 2006
By Bradley J. Fikes, Thursday, 27 April , 2006 @ 9:32 am
Try:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37943-2002Dec25?language=printer
or
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37943-2002Dec25
not:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37943-2002Dec25.html
By Gauis Arbo, Thursday, 27 April , 2006 @ 9:35 am
Thanks, Bradley. I’ll send it along to Riehl world.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Thursday, 27 April , 2006 @ 9:37 am
I just did.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Thursday, 27 April , 2006 @ 9:42 am
This is one reason, I might add, to be a little cautious in drawing conclusions about media actions just because a link doesn’t work for someone.
All I had to do to find the WashPost article on the WashPost site was Google these words from the archived copy:
“secret CIA interrogation center”
Immediately, I see the WashPost Web site. In total, it took me less than two minutes from seeing the problem to finding the links on the newspaper’s site.
The moral of this story is that newspapers often have sucky archiving practices (URLs change, etc) and that Google does the job better.
That doesn’t come as a surprise to me at all.
By Gauis Arbo, Thursday, 27 April , 2006 @ 9:51 am
Bradley,
I said “if”. I note that Riehl World also thought it was an archive issue. The moral of the story should be that trying the memory hole trick in this day and age would be stupid. Too many caches out there.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Thursday, 27 April , 2006 @ 10:26 am
There is absolutely no proof that any “memory hole” issue is involved, so how can you draw that moral?
By Gauis Arbo, Thursday, 27 April , 2006 @ 10:33 am
No there is no proof, I’m just saying it’s a dumb idea these days, ok?
By Bradley J. Fikes, Thursday, 27 April , 2006 @ 11:26 am
Gaius,
Dumb yes, but bringing it up without proof — and when the article can easily be found on the Post’s Web page — makes it look like the one making the suggestion didn’t do much research. The article is there. No memory hole in this case.
Is it too much to ask people to do some basic research before suggesting or implying that a dishonest motive might be at work?
Best,
Bradley
By Black Jack, Thursday, 27 April , 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Bradley asked, “Is it too much to ask people to do some basic research before suggesting or implying that a dishonest motive might be at work?”
No, it’s not too much to ask. And, I applaud you for raising the issue, it’s important and would go a long way toward more comprehensive efforts to inform the public, especially from those who get paid to provide objective reports, and who occupy the prominent positions in our nations established media.
MSM’s efforts to blame GWB for the problems in New Orleans is a particularly egregious example of just the failure you point out. So is the claim that Valerie Plame was “outed” to punish Joe Wilson, as is the charge that Bush lied about Saddam’s WMD. The list is long and illustrates you point well.
By Black Jack, Thursday, 27 April , 2006 @ 12:25 pm
Let me hasten to add that it’s also a good idea to proofread one’s comment before it’s submitted. I resemble that.
By Gauis Arbo, Thursday, 27 April , 2006 @ 12:28 pm
Yeah what said he.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Thursday, 27 April , 2006 @ 7:30 pm
Black Jack,
We both agree that the MSM needs to take accuracy seriously and correct errors. I’ve written extensively on my blog about Michael Hiltzik’s sock puppetry, and the media’s utter failure (outside of Cathy Seipp) to explain why this is unethical.
As for your second comment, that reminds me of the old copyediting maxim: Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
By Gauis Arbo, Thursday, 27 April , 2006 @ 7:47 pm
What saying you are, Bradley?
(Yoda voice)
By Black Jack, Saturday, 29 April , 2006 @ 5:19 pm
Bradley, I read your blog, and I applaud your thoughts on Hiltzik’s misbehavior. In addition, today I praised you key point at Matt Welch’s blog.
You’re a standup guy, and I’m a fan, but I do think that professional journalists ought to be held to a higher standard than we presently see in major MSM outlets. The bias is so obvious, and the denial is so pervasive, that one is tempted to color the whole noisy tribe with the same yellow paint. Forgive me if I overstate the case, but I’m fed up.
BTW are you having second thoughts about allowing comments, or is it in the works?