This Powerline analysis is devastating and correct. One of the reasons “big” journalism is becoming ever more contemptible to the wider public is because it’s so hicky and parochial: Journalistic institutions like the Pulitzers see the media as a world in and of itself rather than as merely observers of the real world.
Whether or not to scuttle the NSA surveillance program is not about winning a prize but about winning a war – and the inability of the press to understand that reflects very poorly on them. I used to criticize the Pulitzer winners mainly because they were unreadable – like that incoherent gay-marriage burbler from The Rutland Herald who won a couple of years back – and, whenever I did so, I’d get leftie e-mails saying it’s just ’cause I’m a loser who hasn’t a hope of ever nailing a Pulitzer.
As it happens, I’m ineligible. British newspaper awards are open to writers published in British newspapers and Canadian newspaper awards are open to writers published in Canadian newspapers but the wee delicate Pulitzers are only open to US citizens. So I’m ineligible. And, after the quasi-collaborationist AP photo awards and the national security-damaging NYT awards, that’s just as well because I wouldn’t want the thing in the house.
Betsy Newmark’s commentary on this Post piece is very shrewd. The difference in tone between the left and right wings of the blogosphere is not to the Democrats’ advantage. A large segment of the soft left is heavily invested in the idea that they’re the “nice” party – Bill Clinton understood that with all the “it’s about the future of all our children” piffle. The more Kossified the Dems get the more unelectable they become.