Three reasons why the WSJ hasn't won a Pulitzer in three years

Peter Kadzis of the Boston Phoenix notes that The Wall Street Journal is the only paper among the four — with the other three being the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times — that have dominated the Pulitzers in recent years to go three years without winning at least one.

He speculates there are three reasons.

Kadzis writes, “It strikes me that there are three plausible reasons for this current dry spell:

1. Bad luck — could happen to anyone.

2. Prejudice against Murdoch. If the Pulitzer process represents the closest thing to the sanctum sanctorum of journalism, then the Murdoch interests — a challenging rather than collegial force in the business — could invite indifference.

3. The changes instituted by Murdoch at the Journal and so ably executed by publisher Les Hinton, formerly of the Times of London, have made that paper snappier and more immediate in the manner of the Financial Times (also London based), but in the process sacrificed the sort of heft that high-minded journalism judges seek to reward.’