ProPublica’s Pulitzer For Its Blatantly False Clarence Thomas Smear Should Be Revoked
The misleading story turned out to be fundamentally incorrect, but that didn’t stop ProPublica from continuing its journalistic malpractice.The misleading story turned out to be fundamentally incorrect, but that didn’t stop ProPublica from continuing its journalistic malpractice.Rage Over Charissa Thompson’s Fabrications Should Extend To All Corporate Media Liars
The Thompsons of the journalism world were once viewed as anomalies in newsrooms. Now, they are the standard.Sen. Graham joins critics calling for Pulitzer Prize given to Washington Post and New York Times to be rescinded after Durham report proved their narrative to be 'politically motivated crap'
The Pulitzer Prize board honored New York Times and Washington Post reporters with a cash prize and its once-esteemed award in 2018 for peddling the thoroughly debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative, which proved politically expedient for the liberal reporters' ideological comrades in Washington at the time.
In light of the damning Durham report, critics now reckon the awards to be albatrosses around the necks of those who dutifully worked to mislead the nation — put there by an organization apparently indifferent to the storm gathered as a consequence.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has joined those now urging that the Pulitzer Prize awarded to the staff at both papers be "taken back."
Graham told Fox News' "America's Newsroom" Tuesday that "we have a situation where the FBI ran every stop sign available, kept pushing a warrant against an American citizen based on a Steele dossier that was a piece of fiction. The information was supplied the FBI by two Russian agents. It was used to get a warrant against an American citizen to turn his life upside down and create a cloud of the Trump presidency and try to deny him the presidency."
With the full understanding provided in the Durham report that the investigation was from the get-go a stitch-up predicated upon a false claim, originally approved and advanced by failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Graham stressed that three things should happen:
First, Attorney General Merrick Garland "should pick up the phone and call all those that were harmed by this and say, 'Even though it didn't happen on my watch, I'll apologize to you. This is not the Department of Justice that I want you to believe in,'" said Graham.
Second, FBI Director Christopher Wray should "get on the phone and apologize to the people that had their lives ruined by the FBI."
Third, "the Pulitzer Prize given to the Washington Post and New York Times should be taken back because the entire episode was politically motivated crap. That's not something you should get a Pulitzer Prize for," added Graham.
Graham doubled down on this third suggestion Wednesday, tweeting, "Awarding the Washington Post and New York Times Pulitzer Prizes for reporting political fiction as fact regarding President Trump shows that these prizes are awarded not based on the product of your work, but the subject you go after. They should rescind the prize."
The awards in question went to the staffs of the New York Times and the Washington Post for what the Pulitzer Prize Board characterized as "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration."
The Daily Mail reported that the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post remains unrepentant.
"The Post stands by its reporting," said Jennifer Lee, a spokeswoman for the paper, citing a 2022 review by the Pulitzer board that claimed no aspect of the awarded stories "were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes."
This statement appears to indicate that false reports may be deserving of awards, just so long as the truth comes out after the receipt of the prize.
While the Washington Post evidently stands by past false narratives, the New York Times appears keen to downplay newly revealed truths.
In its Monday story on the Durham report, the Times claimed, "Mr. Durham’s 306-page report revealed little substantial new information about the inquiry," suggesting that Durham's hunt "for evidence to support Mr. Barr’s theory that intelligence abuses lurked in the origins of the Russia inquiry" had proven fruitless.
It added, "The special counsel’s final report nevertheless did not produce blockbuster revelations of politically motivated misconduct, as Donald J. Trump and his allies had suggested it would."
TheBlaze reported in 2019 that then-President Trump said the Pulitzer committee should revoke a joint Pulitzer Prize from both newspapers "for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia."
\u201cSo funny that The New York Times & The Washington Post got a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia - And there was No Collusion! So, they were either duped or corrupt? In any event, their prizes should be taken away by the Committee!\u201d— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump) 1553901917
In response to Trump's suggestion, the New York Times wrote in a March 29, 2019, tweet, "We're proud of our Pulitzer-prize winning reporting on Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. Every @nytimes article cited has proven accurate."
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took to Twitter Monday to comment on the Durham report, writing, "Disgraceful. Obama-Biden officials and the corrupt corporate media pushed these piles of lies for years. Accountability now— starting with WaPo and The New York Times returning their Pulitzer Prizes for breathlessly spreading these ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ lies."
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) posed the question, "Ready to give your Pulitzer back now?"
\u201cReady to give your Pulitzer back now?\u201d— Congressman Byron Donalds (@Congressman Byron Donalds) 1684186374
Sean Spicer, who served as press secretary and White House communications director under President Donald Trump, quipped, "How will the Washington Post send back its Pulitzer? USP, FedEx, UPS."
Former Georgia state Rep. Vernon Jones (R) wrote, "For three years the liberal media portrayed the now-infamous Steele dossier — the original basis for the Trump- Russian collusion claims — as true, and the New York Times and Washington Post received Pulitzer Prizes for a story that not only has been debunked but shown to be the product of Hillary’s Clinton’s presidential campaign."
The Georgia Republican suggested that it's time for the papers to issue apologies.
Graham Reacts to the Durham Report youtu.be
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Pulitzer Prizes blasted over conferring once-prestigious award upon porn-obsessed transvestite whose 2019 thesis was that 'getting f***** makes you female'
The Pulitzer Prize administered by Columbia University was once a prestigious award handed out for meaningful achievements in the media and the arts. This year, a pornography-obsessed transvestite who recently advanced the thesis that womanhood is a matter of sexual penetration received the award for "distinguished criticism, using any available journalistic tool."
What are the details?
Andrew Long Chu, who calls himself Andrea, will receive $15,000 along with the accolade for five book reviews in New York magazine wherein he allegedly employed "multiple cultural lenses to explore some of society's most fraught topics."
\u201cso am i really the first trans person to win a pulitzer? can we fact check this?\u201d— wife of the mind (@wife of the mind) 1683575232
In one review, Chu discussed a short story about "a shut-in feudal lord who spends his days easing foreign objects into his rectum" and drew the conclusion that "this is why we all sh**: to be renewed. Everything else — money, political ideology, institutions of all kinds — is a distraction from the fundamental unity of sh** and spirit."
Another book review found partially deserving of the Pulitzer concerned the missteps of a suicidal gay person.
Chu, who admitted in a 2013 article that he was a racist, navigated his hang-ups on the subject in a review entitled, "The Mixed Metaphor[:] Why does the half-Asian, half-white protagonist make us so anxious?"
Vox Media commended the Pulitzer Awards' decision, claiming Chu "has made an indelible mark on readers and the industry as a whole" and further alleging that he "articulates fundamental truths" about the subject matter he scrutinizes.
It is unclear whether Vox Media and other leftist supporters reckon Chu's recent remarks about women constitute articulations of fundamental truths.
Award-winning dehumanization
Reduxx reported that Chu's first book, "Females," published by Verso Press, served as a 94-page screed advancing the notion "that anyone can become female, and that being penetrated during sex defines womanhood."
In the book, the transvestic author wrote, "Getting f***ed makes you female because f***ed is what a female is," describing himself as once being "a sad, pretentious boy, furious about rape, hopelessly addicted to pornography."
Chu also wrote that the "barest essentials" of femaleness are "an open mouth, an expectant ***hole, blank, blank eyes."
The Pulitzer awardee has admitted that a porn obsession is what first prompted him to masquerade as a woman.
"Almost every night, for at least a year before I transitioned, I would wait till my girlfriend had fallen asleep and slip out of bed for the bathroom with my phone. I was going on Tumblr to look at something called sissy porn. I’d discovered it by accident one night, scrolling lazily down a pornographic rabbit hole," he wrote.
The variety of porn in question concerns degenerate acts involving feminized men.
Chu admitted, "Sissy porn did make me trans. … At the center of sissy porn lies the ***hole, a kind of universal vagina through which femaleness can always be accessed."
Elements of the literary world began to celebrate him after his so-called transition and apparent desperate need to speak about it at length.
According to Reduxx, after Andrew started calling himself Andrea, he was invited to speak at various universities, frequently speaking on the topic of his porn-exacerbated gender dysphoria.
He was also named as a finalist for the Lambda Literary Award in Transgender Nonfiction for his 2019 book dehumanizing women.
Chu's dehumanization has not been limited to adult women.
He tweeted in 2019, "are there republican lawmakers less developed than a 6 week old fetus? yes. but do i think we should abort those lawmakers? also yes."
On Jan. 28, 2019, he wrote, "thinking about getting a uterus transplant just to have an abortion."
Backlash
A number of feminists have spoken out in response to the news that Chu won the Pulitzer.
Feminist novelist Christina Dalcher tweeted, "No, really, @PulitzerPrizes and anyone else celebrating this: F*** you. Sincerely, A Woman (the one and only kind)."
Kara Dansky, the president of the American chapter of Women's Declaration International, referenced one of Chu's more egregious anti-woman barbs and wrote, "Shame on you, @PulitzerPrizes."
Award-winning New Yorker cartoonist Lisa Rothstein called the conference of the award upon Chu "revolting."
Retired doctor and gender ideology critic Isidora Sanger said of Chu's award, "Mediocrity of male supremacy waves its male genitals in women's faces yet again."
Jeremy Carl, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institution, wrote, "Thank you for demonstrating more powerfully than I ever could how the Pulitzer Prizes have become a complete joke."
Here is Andrew Long Chu discussing "trans identity" back in December:
Andrea Long Chu | High Low with EmRata youtu.be
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
For Five Straight Years, The Pulitzer Prizes Have Rewarded Misinformation
This many high-profile failures in such a short time makes winning a Pulitzer look definitively like a mark of ignominy.Washington Post Criticism Of Christians Is All Name-Calling, No Argument
What’s most arresting about Washington Post Senior Critic-at-Large Robin Givhan’s theological musings is that they lack an actual argument.'They reported the exact wrong thing': Trump threatens to sue unrepentant Pulitzer board for defamation over awards to 'Russia Hoax' journalists
Former President Donald Trump said on Saturday that he will sue the Pulitzer Prize Board for awarding journalists who advanced the discredited "Russia Hoax" narrative as well as for doubling down on allegedly defamatory remarks. For over a year, Trump has insisted that the Pulitzer board revoke the prizes to the New York Times and the Washington Post because the awarded reporting "have become worthless and meaningless."
What are the details?
At his "Save America" rally in Robstown, Texas, on Saturday, Trump split his attention between the future and the recent past.
Concerning the future, Trump indicated he would "probably" run again for president in 2024, stating, "In order to make our country successful, safe and glorious again, I will probably have to do it again." He emphasized the need to focus first on the midterm elections and on securing a "historic victory for the Republican Party this November."
Regarding the recent past, Trump underscored how those who covered so-called Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election should not be permitted to keep their prizes for national reporting.
Rather than on individual journalists, Trump honed his critique on the Pulitzer Prize Board, which recently refused to rescind the awards that had been conferred to reporters for pushing the "Russia Hoax."
The awards in question went to the staffs of the New York Times and the Washington Post for what the Pulitzer Prize Board characterized as "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration."
The former president said, "They gave out the Pulitzer Prize for reporting on the Russia Hoax, reporting on Russia, Russia, Russia. So you have reporters from the Washington Post, the New York Times, that got Pulitzer Prizes, and they reported the exact wrong thing."
Whereas the liberal media was awarded for "wrong reporting," advancing and amplifying spurious claims that Trump and his team had colluded with Russia, the former president noted that "other people should have gotten the Pulitzer Prize because, frankly, they got it right for years."
Trump claimed that "they don't do Pulitzer prizes" for those who, in his view, got it right, such as Fox News hosts Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Jeanine Pirro, and Laura Ingraham.
Trump indicated that, in lieu of another request for rectification, he will now be "suing the Pulitzer organization to have those prizes taken back" within the next two weeks.
"By allowing these people that got Russia, Russia, Russia wrong [to get the award]," said Trump, "they're actually libeling me because they're saying they got it right and it turned out to be a hoax."
\u201cJUST IN: President Donald Trump has just announced tonight that he will be suing the Pulitzer organization in the next two weeks to take retract the Pulitzer Prizes from certain journalists who received it for reporting on the Russia Hoax \ud83d\udca5 \n\nEnemy of the people.\u201d— Personal Blog Media News (@Personal Blog Media News) 1666487564
The Pulitzer Prize Board's refusal to rescind
After it received the Pulitzer in 2018, the New York Times celebrated itself for "changing the nation's understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 election."
The Washington Post similarly ran an article at the time, boasting that the "Post's revelations about Russia, including contacts between Russian figures and President Trump's associates and advisers, helped set the stage for the special counsel's ongoing investigation of the administration."
That investigation, which the Department of Justice said cost $32 million, ended with Special Counsel Robert Mueller finding no evidence of Russian collusion.
Even after the Steel dossier was discredited (admitted in the pages of the New York Times), the NYT and the Washington Post both doubled down, suggesting as late as spring 2022 that the Russian investigation was not undercut.
Townhall noted in 2019 that "Neither one of the newspapers' reporting was 'heavily sourced,' although it was 'relentlessly reported,' probably because they were trying to push their editorial agenda ... Now that we know there was no collusion, now that we know there was no obstruction, does this mean we get a 'redo' on this award?"
Trump has been asking the same question for years.
Lawsuit
The Hill reported that last October, Trump wrote to Pulitzer's interim administrator claiming that the award in national reporting, which had been given to the two liberal papers, was "based on false reporting of a non-existent link between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign."
Facing similar demands from Trump and others, the Pulitzer board announced on July 18 that it had commissioned two independent reviews of the work for which prizes were awarded.
According to a statement issued by the board, the "separate reviews converged in their conclusions: that no passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes."
On Oct. 13, Trump's attorneys Jeremy Bailie and R. Quincy Bird wrote to Marjorie Miller, the administrator of the Pulitzer Prize Board, concerning the board's July statement. In the letter, Trump's attorneys notified the board that "a defamatory statement pertaining to President Trump was and remains published on the Board's website since July 18, 2022."
The letter cautioned that "the Board, including its individual members, may be subject to suit and exposed to a judgment for damages, including punitive damages, for defamation," demanding not only that the statement be taken down by Oct.18, but that "a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction issued."
Additionally, Trump's attorneys noted that "rescinding the 2018 Pulitzer Prizes in National Reporting from their current recipients would necessarily be part of any full and fair attempt to right the wrong caused by the Board's conduct."
The letter advanced the claim made by Trump on Saturday: "The New York Times and The Washington Post were and are two of the foremost propagators of the Russia Collusion Hoax" and that it was "obvious that the 2018 Pulitzer Pries were intended to endorse the two mainstream media organizations' full, misleading body of work on the Russia Collusion Hoax."
A hostile Pulitzer board
The Pulitzer Prize Board, 2017-2018, which conferred the awards for investigations into disproven Russian interference included a number of fierce Trump critics, such as Gail Collins, an opinion columnist at the New York Times.
Two years before determining whether reporting on so-called Russian interference as it pertained to Trump's election and presidency were deserving of an award, Collins referred to the president as, "A dimwitted, meanspirited spawn embodying the nation's worst flaws, failings and nightmares" and suggested prior to the 2016 election that undecideds should vote for Clinton.
Eugene Robinson, the Pulitzer Prize Board's chair in 2018, is a columnist and associate editor at the Washington Post, which also happened to receive the award. He also happens to be an outspoken critic of the former president.
In the year he was on the board, Robinson accused Trump of "speaking the language of white supremacy," telling his Twitter followers to, "Get mad, and then get even: Vote against his enablers in November."
The chair of the Pulitzer Prize Board also accused Trump of being a "Putin fanboy."
Fake News Board (Commonly Known As Pulitzer Prize) Defends Award To 2018 Russia Hoaxers
The Pulitzer Prize Board defended its 2018 award to a team of New York Times reporters who exacerbated the Russia hoax.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com