Seriously? Reporting was that bad last year?
The earthquake in Haiti and Gulf oil spill were among the most intensely covered stories of 2010, but none of that coverage was deemed worthy of a Pulitzer Prize for reporting. Journalism's most prestigious awards went to the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, among others, but the awards were notable for the one prize no one won - basic breaking news.
In a first in the 95-year history of the Pulitzers, judges declined to name a winner in the category, usually given for local coverage.
[. . .]
The finalists were the Chicago Tribune for coverage of the deaths of two Chicago firefighters; The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald for reporting on the Haiti earthquake; and The Tennessean in Nashville, Tenn., for coverage of a devastating flood.
The chair of the nominating committee for breaking news, Gabriel Escobar, the metro editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, said it was not a year "defined by major breaking news."
"This is a category that these days is defined by what you can do online. It's a tough category and it's very competitive," he said.
The judges don't have to choose from among the finalists selected by a panel, and in fact have ignored those recommendations in some categories in some years. It's hard to believe that among all the submissions from all over the country, not a single one was good enough to be considered Pulitzer-worthy.
But the committee chair is right that it's a tough, competitive category, and it's undoubtedly going to become more so. Technology is not only changing how the news is delivered and consumed -- people aren't content to wait for the evening newscast or morning paper to know what's happening -- it's also creating a DIY news world. We talked to the mayor this week, and he said the new 311 upgrade will let people take a photo of the pothole in their street with their cellp
