For Five Years, The Pulitzer Prizes Have Rewarded Misinformation

submitted by [deleted] from thefederalist.com

all 11 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]1Icemonkey 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Same with Nobel Peace Prizes.

[–]SoCo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Such as Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Barack -"Double tap" to kill the first responders- Obama

Context: Former President Barack Obama publicly praised this war-strategy's use ("War on Terror"), when executing unilaterally sanctioned drone killings of foreign people declared "terrorists" (and their bystanders), without a trial.

[–]SMCAB 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He got an Amercan citizen too while he was at it if I remember correctly.

[–]1Icemonkey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. Imagine a moslem halfbreed born in Kenya and elected via race and White guilt, to do even more wars for Israel than the previous two Bushes.

[–]dicknipples 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My first thought when seeing this is: if a spreader of misinformation like thefederalist.com claims this, the Pulitzer must be going to the best people

That aside: I am indeed interested in knowing which pulitzers were awarded for misinformation

So I read the article and of course: there is no explicit critique of any specific journalist about the misinformation they spread in order to win a Pulitzer. Nothing.

To save others the waste of time reading this BS, here is the author's general, unproven argument:

Every one of these major stories was badly handled by the media writ large, served activist political narratives, frequently involved credulously regurgitating actual misinformation, or some combination thereof.

So why does this article exist?: Is it to attack journalism in general? To support the kind of hatred of investigative journalism that can get corrupt people in trouble? Does thefederalist.com get their financial support from these corrupt people? What's the bias of this paper? Is it extreme right?. Is it trustworthy? Why do hard right donors support this website? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(website) . Is it because the Federalist has a rating of only 56% factual and can be relied upon to spread misinformation? Well, the least they could do is backup their claims about which journalists spread misinformation, especially while spreading obvious misinformation about journalists. This is dangerous territory because journalists and media workers are murdered regularlly, and should be protected if we are to know more about political corruption.

[–]binaryblob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why do hard right donors support this website?

It's just propaganda funded by foreign actors in order to destroy American society. There is not much point in worrying about it, because the TLAs know exactly who is behind it. If you want to know who is funding it, all you need to do is compare talking points of various governments and the content you see. If you see a Winnie the Pooh comic being distributed in China, you can be certain it's the West too.

Misinformation for a large audience is not on the national political spectrum, unless you are trying to actively destroy the state, which nobody with money wants to do, because it's bad for their wallet and security.

In a way, the "news" doesn't exist for poor people. By poor I mean people without access to their own news gathering agencies and their own spy satellites, so anyone not a billionaire, probably has no idea what's happening in the world. Take the war in Ukraine, the only way to know what is going on, is if you have invested about $500B in satellite infrastructure before the war and supporting analytics. The Russians probably didn't invest that much, because otherwise they would have already won the war.

I would expect the only entity to know what is going on to be the US. They just give enough crumbs of data to Ukraine in order to weaken Russia. I'd expect the pleas for more weapons to be mostly pointless at this point, because the US already knows months in advance what the war effort will need. It's just theater. At the start of the war "we need ammo, not a ride" was probably politically influential (but even then, the mere intention to defend with NATO training Ukraine for the last 8 years was probably more relevant; Zelensky could have gone to a hotel in London and nothing would have been different (with digital technology, perhaps all the imagery at the start of the war was fake (I would certainly have done that and they certainly had the capability)), because the guy is a comedian, not some military war planning genius), but once the decision to help was made, any other talks were superfluous.

Russia isn't even a sovereign country anymore, because they also need to procure weapons elsewhere.

The US is just so overpowered that if it were a video game, it would be called unfair.

[–]ShekelPa 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Any unironic use of the term misinformation is always questionable. Like using the term undocumented instead of the accurate term illegal.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(((The Pulitzer Prize)))

[–]carn0ld03 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Only five years?

[–]William_World 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

they should give the pull it zer prize to lucky larry