Several years ago, a professional acquaintance shared his experience as a judge on the Pulitzer Prize board. “The entire existence of the Pulitzer award,” he explained to me, “is to validate the work of the New York Times.” He said it is expected the New York Times will be recognized in one or more categories. “One year, the Times didn’t win a particular award. We [the judges] thought it fell short of the competition,” he said. The aftermath shocked him. “We were called on the carpet. Pulitzer staff were furious with us. The Times was supposed to get this one award we were told. And we screwed up,” he related. “This is amazing. Would you go on the record with this?” I asked. “Are you kidding me?” he replied. “I still have to work with these people.”

I often think of this conversation when I see a reference to the Pulitzer. Many already know the sad history of the Pulitzer Prize organization. When irrefutable evidence was presented that confirmed New York Times Moscow bureau chief Walter Duranty lied in his dispatches (covering up the Soviets’ Holodomor genocide of the Ukrainian people) that were recognized with the 1932 award, the Pulitzer organization refused to revoke the award. Historian Mark von Hagen of Columbia University, sponsor of the Pulitzer award, reviewed Duranty’s worked and recommended the Pulitzer Board “should take the prize away.” The New York Times disagreed. The Pulitzer organization ignored the recommendation.