Categories: OLD Media Moves

More on WSJ's lack of Pulitzers

Aaron Elstein of Crain’s New York Business writes Monday about the Wall Street Journal being shut out of winning a Pulitzer Prize for the third consecutive year.

Elstein writes, “It has come close a couple of times since. It was a finalist in 2009 for its coverage of the financial collapse and a finalist again in 2008 for its coverage on Vladimir Putin’s dismantling of Russian democracy.

“None of the paper’s articles were deemed finalists for the 2010 batch of Pulitzers.

“How strange it is to see this. Starting in 1995, the Journal won Pulitzers every year with two exceptions – 1998 and 2006, according to the Pulitzer Prize Web site. And even in 1998, the paper was a finalist.

“During its amazing run, the paper won in most every category, including national, international, beat and explanatory reporting. It won in criticism and commentary. The backdating story won the prestigious public service award. In 1995, 2001, 2004, 2005 and 2007 it took home two Pulitzers. Say what you want about the Journal when it was owned by the Bancroft family – it sounds like an upcoming book by Sarah Ellison will say it all – but this paper used to be a prize-winning machine.

“Now, perhaps these things go in cycles and the Journal will soon regain its prize-winning mojo. But when Mr. Murdoch’s team took over at the Journal, it said it would emphasize different sorts of stories than past management did. Today, the paper generally gives less space to the sort of in-depth feature stories that Pulitzer judges awarded in years past, although there’s a thoroughly gripping investigative article about life insurance on the front page today (written, it so happens, by one the reporters on the back-dating story).”

View Comments

Joey says:
April 13, 2010 at 9:22 am
This is not surprising. While Murdoch & Co. have expanded the range of coverage the WSJ reports, and done it well, and boosted circulation-- they have done so at the expense of depth. Their ridiculous quest to become the NYT of conservatives (hiring staffers to follow NY sports teams? Really?) won't do them any favors in the future, either. Expect the occasional Pulitzer for commentary or breaking news, and fewer for in-depth treatments like the paper previously would have won.
More interesting to me is that the LA Times and Chicago Tribune have been shut out since Sam Zell decided to run them into the grave. Possibly the Pulitzer Committee thumbing their nose at Zell (who deserves it), or more likely just a statement about how quickly a good paper can lapse into mediocrity once bad management arrives.