They have died insofar as they ever represented responsible journalism.
IOW, the correct interpretation of their masthead is not:
We are the lasting and impregnable bulwark of democracy.
Instead, the correct interpretation is:
We are the fragile and spineless canary in the coalmine. Now that we are truly most sincerely dead, you can bet that democracy is soon to follow.
Another long time Washington Post staffer is leaving citing Bezos’ editorial policy:
Stranger
Ann Telnaes has just won the Pulitzer Prize for “illustrated reporting and commentary”. WaPo is proudly touting this as a win for them, despite her quitting the Post earlier this year due to editorial interference.
WaPo has also won a Pulitzer for “breaking news coverage” which is apt - they used to have excellent news coverage and then they broke it.
There isn’t really a functional free press in 2025. It’s thousands and even millions of smaller presses that are now hosted on platforms owned by really wealthy people who have no use for liberty and democracy, only capital.
I think this is false. NPR is a functional free press. The NYT, too. AP, BBC also count.
Nng…sometimes…
If I was magically awarded the biggest lottery win, and bought the Post… I think my only influence on them would be in the “letters to the editor” section (assuming they have one) where I would write in as an anonymous citizen.
Editorial independance is sacrosanct.
Also The Boston Globe.
Sure. Point is, it’s too cynical, even for this board, to say that there’s no functional free press. It’s just an excuse to “do your own research” and go down bullshit partisan rabbit holes.
I’m guessing that with this award the Pulitzer Prize committee is getting in a little dig at Bezos. (As well as recognizing the genuinely-talented Telnaes.)
That would be accusing them of politicizing a journalism award which is dedicated to excellence in journalism.
Is defending journalism against censorship equivalent to “politicizing” journalism?
I would argue the opposite.
Awarding it based on ideology is the very definition of “politicizing”, even when one believes that their ideology is the clear correct one. There were many, many excellent political cartoons last year. I’d like to think it was chosen because they thought it was better than the others.
I’d argue this is akin to
Censorship is like intolerance. A successful democratic pluralistic future demands it not be tolerated. Or censored.
Self-interest is not an ideology. As a journalism award, the Pulitzer has an obligation to encourage journalistic freedom and to protect journalists. Otherwise, it cannot justify its own existence.
But that’s accusing them of bias.
From Pulitzer.org:
the Pulitzer Board takes seriously its mission to recognize excellence in reporting, literature, history, and culture,
Bolding mine.
The cartoon would easily fall under:
Before they begin reviewing submissions, jurors must agree upon a set of criteria that will be used to assess the entries. These criteria could include difficulty, novelty, and impact, for example.
Bolding mine.
For a distinguished portfolio of editorial cartoons or other illustrated work (still, animated, or both) characterized by political insight, editorial effectiveness, or public service value.
Bolding mine.
I’d say impact and editorial effectiveness is exactly what this cartoon falls under.
While the committee may certainly also enjoy the fact that this particular award is getting a little dig at Bezos, to even imply that the award is biased in that regard cheapens it.
Ann Telnaes has won a Pulitzer previous to this one. I think her work stands on its own merit.
I’m in agreement with this opinion.
Haven’t read the whole thread, so maybe it’s been addressed, but Ms. Telnaes has the last laugh here, because she got the Pulitzer Prize for that cartoon, and her reaction to ITS reaction. Congrats! I chose this link, because the headline says it all.
Self-interest is not bias. It’s the default human condition.
Bias is also the default human condition, so this is not in any way a valid counter.