An example of this is how activists claim Glenn Greenwald is a Pulitzer Prize Winner. He isn't. It's the Guardian newspaper that won the prize, not Greenwald.
The following is my email exchange with the Pulitzer organization, not that truth will convince activists:
Received: from dyn-128-59-99-157.dyn.columbia.edu (dyn-128-59-99-157.dyn.columbia.edu [220.127.116.11]) by cubmail.cc.columbia.edu (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:50:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:50:47 -0400 From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Robert Graham Subject: Re: Prize for Community Service Dear Mr. Graham: Both The Washington Post and The Guardian US were awarded 2014 Pulitzer Prizes in Public Service. The Public Service prize is always awarded to the newspaper and not the individual. Please see our list of past Public Service winners here: http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Public-Service Sincerely, Claudia Weissberg Website Manager The Pulitzer Prizes Quoting Robert Graham
: > Hello. > > I wholeheartedly agree with your choice for "Community Service", but I > don't understand it. The prize honors the newspapers, but does that > mean the journalists like Glenn Greenwald or the leaker Edward Snowden > can likewise claim credit? In other words, is it accurate to call > Greenwald a Pulitzer Prize Winner? > > Thank you for clearing this up, > Robert Graham > >
“While the NSA is wrong, its critics are worse”
This is tribal thinking at its worst – dislike those activists as much as you want but misrepresenting something like this is nothing like repeatedly, knowingly breaking US law.
But who were the lead investigative journalists for a series of reports published at the newspapers? It's Glenn Greenwald for the Guardian and Barton Gellman for the Washington Post. Arguing they didn't win or trying to diminish their role in the reporting is disingenuous. You'd be surprised how many times people call Bob Woodward two-time Pulitzer Prize winning reporter - one is for Public Service in 1973 and the other for National Reporting in 2002. His name is not listed anywhere in the Pulitzer Prize website for these categories in these years, but people knew he was the main/lead reporter for both prizes that the Post won.
I endorse your comment, because it is the truth, not that it's going change anyone's mind - sloppy people will be sloppy.
The comment above by Chris Adams is a perfect example of what is wrong with the enthusiasts: in fact, no documents yet publicised by Snowden, Greenwald, et al prove widespread lawlessness. The fact that I do not approve of something does not make it illegal, much less unconstitutional.
Jumping the gun and blandly spreading charges of "repeatedly, knowingly breaking US law" is a quick way to discredit supporters of civil liberties as a gang of stupid and irresponsible hysterics with a penchant for over reaction.
Post a Comment