Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Panel Won't Pull N.Y. Times 1932 Pulitzer
AP via Lycos.com ^ | 11/21/2003

Posted on 11/21/2003 2:21:28 PM PST by GeneD

NEW YORK (AP) -- The 1932 Pulitzer Prize awarded to a New York Times reporter accused of deliberately ignoring the forced famine in Ukraine will not be revoked, an administrator for the journalism awards said Friday.

"The board determined that there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case," Pulitzer administrator Sig Gissler said in a statement.

A review of Walter Duranty's work was launched in April by a Pulitzer subcommittee.

The review came amid complaints that Duranty's reports intentionally made no mention of the Soviet Union's forced famine in Ukraine in 1932-1933 that killed as many as 7 million people. Josef Stalin's regime created the famine to force Ukrainian peasants into surrendering their land.

Complaints to the Pulitzer committee had come from Ukrainians worldwide.

Gissler's statement pointed out that the award was given for 13 articles that were written and published during 1931 -- before the famine.

Duranty covered the Soviet Union for the Times from 1922 to 1941, earning acclaim for an exclusive 1929 interview with Stalin.

But Duranty eventually was exposed for reporting the Communist line rather than the facts. According to the 1990 book "Stalin's Apologist," Duranty knew of the famine but ignored the atrocities to preserve his access to Stalin.

The Times has distanced itself from Duranty's work. The reporter's 1932 Pulitzer is displayed with this caveat: "Other writers in the Times and elsewhere have discredited this coverage."

In the 86-year history of the awards, no Pulitzer has ever been revoked.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Russia; US: New York
KEYWORDS: award; awards; communism; duranty; nyt; pulitzer; walterduranty; whitewash

1 posted on 11/21/2003 2:21:28 PM PST by GeneD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Timesink
GRRRRRRRRRR
2 posted on 11/21/2003 2:22:58 PM PST by martin_fierro (_____oooo_(____)_oooo_____)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
As the Pulitzer gets less and less worth winning.
3 posted on 11/21/2003 2:25:49 PM PST by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Surprise, surprise! One lefty organization refuses to revoke an award to a lefty reporter for a lefty newspaper.
4 posted on 11/21/2003 2:25:54 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
This is truly hilarious. If there was no deliberate deception, then BY DEFINITION there was gross ignorance and a complete failure of the primary task of journalism, INVESTIGATING AND REPORTING THE FACTS.

These idiots just hoisted their own butts up the flagpole!
5 posted on 11/21/2003 2:29:50 PM PST by MainFrame65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
This action won't improve any of their reputations. They would have been wiser to choose the other route, admit their error, and take a little short-term flak. Now the stench will linger.

The New York Times has a close relationship with Columbia University and the Columbia School of Journalism, which oversee the Pulitzer Prize. The Sulzberger family are Columbia alumni and Columbia donors.

It all amounts to an incestuous little group of leftists who take turns awarding each other the prize.
6 posted on 11/21/2003 2:32:32 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
Communists never admit wrongdoing, no matter what the evidence. It's about the ideology, not the facts.

If this guy was a proven Soviet agent who merely copied press releases from his KGB masters, the response from modern communists (progressives) would be the same.

Look at the way CNN shilled for Baathists in the past decade. After being exposed and admitting it, they thumbed their nose and were not held to account by the rest of the media establishment.
7 posted on 11/21/2003 2:32:46 PM PST by At _War_With_Liberals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Duranty knew of the famine but ignored the atrocities to preserve his access to Stalin

Sounds just like CNN in Iraq, doesn't it?

8 posted on 11/21/2003 2:36:56 PM PST by Bubba_Leroy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Let me translate this result. "Because the Pulitzer Committees are scared to death of an adverse reaction from the New York Times, we are not about to allow 8 million Ukrainian deaths to cause us to revoke a Times Pulitzer Prize. Better we should cover ourselves with embarrassment than incur the wrath of the gods (excuse me, editors) at the Times."

Did I miss anything?

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Double Crossing at the Rio Grande," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

9 posted on 11/21/2003 2:40:32 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
The 1932 Pulitzer Prize awarded to a New York Times reporter accused of deliberately ignoring the forced famine in Ukraine will not be revoked, an administrator for the journalism awards said Friday.

It's not like the 7 million people were starved for no good reason...I was to advance leftists. I mean...what's 7 million people compared to that???

10 posted on 11/21/2003 2:43:28 PM PST by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Sig Gissler

sg138@columbia.edu

http://www.columbia.edu/~sg138/

Administrator, Pulitzer Prizes
Journalism professor, Columbia University
Specialist in race and media ethics
Teacher of the year, 1998
Presidential Teaching Award, 2002
Founder, Workshops on Journalism, Race & Ethnicity
Former editor, The Milwaukee Journal
Senior fellow, Media Studies Center, 1994
Journalism fellow, Stanford University, 1976

Sig Gissler, award-winning journalist and former editor of The Milwaukee Journal, is the administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes and an associate professor in the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University. Since joining the faculty in 1994, he has taught reporting and writing. He also created a 15-week seminar on coverage of race and ethnic issues in urban America and taught it for eight years, ending in 2002. He served as the school's academic dean from January to July, 1997, and in 1998 was voted "distinguished teacher of the year" by the school's students. In 1999, under the banner of "Let's Do It Better," Gissler founded the school's Workshops on Journalism, Race & Ethnicity for news media professionals, raising more than $1 million in Ford Foundation support and serving as the workshop director for two years. In 2002, he was named to his Pulitzer post and also received a Presidential Teaching Award, one of five out of 300 Columbia professors nominated.

Born and reared in Chicago, Gissler has worked as a reporter, editorial writer, editor and senior newspaper executive. He holds a degree in American civilization from Lake Forest College and did graduate work in political science at Northwestern University.


Gissler in race seminar
Gissler joined The Milwaukee Journal in 1967, after serving as executive editor of the Waukegan (Ill.) News-Sun. In 1975, he was awarded a journalism fellowship at Stanford University, returning to The Journal to become editorial page editor. He was appointed editor of the paper in 1985. Eight years later, after completing a 26-year career at The Journal, Gissler was named a senior fellow at the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center where he conducted an extensive analysis of media coverage of racial issues in America.

hile editor of The Journal, Gissler increased newsroom diversity and in 1991 launched a year-long examination of racial issues in Milwaukee. He also organized a community forum on inner city unemployment that led to increased minority hiring by major companies. As a journalist, Gissler was wide ranging. He covered five national political conventions and undertook major foreign reporting assignments, from India to Latin America to the former USSR.


Gissler is a member of the International Press Institute and the American Society of Newspaper Editors, serving on ASNE committees on diversity and on journalism education. A former Pulitzer Prize juror, he was named Wisconsin "publisher of the year" in 1987, 1991 and 1992, and has won numerous awards for editorial writing and reporting. He was an adviser to the Poynter Institute’s "Diversity Beyond 2000" project on race and journalism.


Gissler was a visiting professor at Stanford University in the summer of 1993 and was awarded a teaching fellowship at Indiana University in 1994. Gissler has lectured widely on media issues and challenges, often focusing on the First Amendment, journalism ethics, newsroom diversity and the coverage of race and ethnicity. In 1997, he addressed an international conference looking "Beyond Racism," sponsored by the Southern Education Foundation. He served as a consultant to an NBC News project on race relations and has appeared on radio and television programs to discuss ethical issues and coverage of minority communities. He has contributed to journalism publications and other periodicals and is working on a book about the interplay of race and media.

11 posted on 11/21/2003 2:46:46 PM PST by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
The NYT should have renounced it in no uncertain times.They and the Pulitzer Board are weasels.
12 posted on 11/21/2003 2:47:10 PM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
Hell, damn, and blast! ( about the only thing I can get away with posting, re my feeling on this, to FR .)

Oh well, this is NOT going to go away and perhaps someday, it'll get brought up again and then, finally be pulled. :-(

13 posted on 11/21/2003 2:52:37 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
I think you've got it.
14 posted on 11/21/2003 2:53:13 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
"Other writers in the Times and elsewhere have discredited this coverage."

This is a good thing, we can now continue to point this out as a reason not to put much weight on the Pulitzer Prize and that you shouldn't believe everything in the NYT.
15 posted on 11/21/2003 2:53:57 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Not a bad decision, really.

The millions of deaths caused by Duranty, the New York Times and American communists from the early 30s up to today can never be reversed. This prize is an eternal reminder of the criminality of the ultra-left wing media in this country.

But, those conservatives of principle who urged that the record of the NYT be cleansed, I believe, overlook the mean spirited pettiness (see: dem plots against those desiring to bring Willie to justice) of the dems and other neocommunists. Once history can be rewrittem, the left's efforts to erase the accomplishments of Nixon, Reagan and Bush come out of the sewer and back rooms and become overt.

The effort to rewrite history for years to come will be in the sleazy dem court as they try to make folks believe that Wilie wasn't a filthy corrupt individual and that they, who lied for him every time, weren't just as guilty.

16 posted on 11/21/2003 2:54:35 PM PST by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I would like to see previous winners petition the Board to have Duranty's prize rescinded in order to maintain the integrity of the Pulitzer....(I can dream)Perhaps the integrity of the prize is questionable and no one wants to closely examine the process anyway.Could it be like the now infamous awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize?
17 posted on 11/21/2003 3:02:58 PM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
ping
18 posted on 11/21/2003 3:03:42 PM PST by Tribune7 (It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
Contact Information

The Pulitzer Prizes
Columbia University
709 Journalism Building
2950 Broadway
New York, NY USA 10027

Voice: (212) 854-3841
Fax: (212) 854-3342
Email: pulitzer@www.pulitzer.org
Web: http://www.pulitzer.org/


19 posted on 11/21/2003 3:05:28 PM PST by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Maybe he deceived himself?

20 posted on 11/21/2003 3:13:20 PM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Rather sounds like keeping the prize with the Times is more important to the committee than to the newspaper--either that, or the committee members see no difference between Duranty's coverage and their own views on the matter of the Soviets.
21 posted on 11/21/2003 3:13:21 PM PST by publius1 (Almost as if he likes it...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
A pathetic attempt to save the dignity and reputation of the NYT and the Pulitizer, not necessarily in that order.
22 posted on 11/21/2003 3:14:12 PM PST by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
"This is a good thing, we can now continue to point this out as a reason not to put much weight on the Pulitzer Prize and that you shouldn't believe everything in the NYT."


I am in complete agreement. I think this is a good thing. They have a problem and they chose not to deal with it. Every year that goes by that they don't deal with the problem, they lose more credibility. The day will come that these left-over prizes will be worthless in the mainstream. Now if they acted to restore dignity to the prize that would have been a problem.
23 posted on 11/21/2003 3:16:28 PM PST by Cdnexpat (Mr Bush, please don't speak to any member of a Liberal government on any topic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Of course not the recipient was pro papaJoe.
24 posted on 11/21/2003 3:18:40 PM PST by Let's Roll (And those that cried Appease! Appease! are hanged by those they tried to please!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
He was a useful idiot of Stalin's at the least..a propagandist in the employ of the Soviets by some accounts.
25 posted on 11/21/2003 3:19:11 PM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
Moral cowardice from the Pulitzer committee. What a surprise. For the record, here's theri weasel words:

"After more than six months of study and deliberation, the Pulitzer Prize Board has decided it will not revoke the foreign reporting prize awarded in 1932 to Walter Duranty of The New York Times.

In recent months, much attention has been paid to Mr. Duranty's dispatches regarding the famine in the Soviet Union in 1932-1933, which have been criticized as gravely defective. However, a Pulitzer Prize for reporting is awarded not for the author's body of work or for the author's character but for the specific pieces entered in the competition. Therefore, the Board focused its attention on the 13 articles that actually won the prize, articles written and published during 1931. [A complete list of the articles, with dates and headlines, is attached.]

In its review of the 13 articles, the Board determined that Mr. Duranty's1931 work, measured by today's standards for foreign reporting, falls seriously short. In that regard, the Board's view is similar to that of The New York Times itself and of some scholars who have examined his 1931 reports. However, the Board concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case. Revoking a prize 71 years after it was awarded under different circumstances, when all principals are dead and unable to respond, would be a momentous step and therefore would have to rise to that threshold.

The famine of 1932-1933 was horrific and has not received the international attention it deserves. By its decision, the Board in no way wishes to diminish the gravity of that loss. The Board extends its sympathy to Ukrainians and others in the United States and throughout the world who still mourn the suffering and deaths brought on by Josef Stalin."

26 posted on 11/21/2003 4:02:23 PM PST by stop_fascism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
No sign of deliberate deception? Huh! They have to be kidding! What dolts! Almost as bad as those idiots at NYT.
27 posted on 11/21/2003 4:22:44 PM PST by Paulus Invictus (RATS are traitors!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stop_fascism
At least they throw a bone.Of course I have read articles that say he admitted in private what he denied in print.
28 posted on 11/21/2003 4:26:04 PM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul
New York Times had their own Baghdad Bob long before Baghdad Bob became famous lying for Iraq (and FReeping the NYT).
29 posted on 11/21/2003 7:46:32 PM PST by BillF (Fight terrorists in Iraq & elsewhere, instead of waiting for them to come to America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expatpat; Timesink; Peacerose
Surprise, surprise! One lefty organization refuses to revoke an award to a lefty reporter for a lefty newspaper.

Fine by me. If the committee had revoked the award, the Times would have seen it as a form of absolution for the Jayson Blair scandal. Now, they get to keep the tainted award forever, which means that the Times will be forever tainted by it!

30 posted on 11/21/2003 7:49:18 PM PST by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MainFrame65
This is truly hilarious. If there was no deliberate deception, then BY DEFINITION there was gross ignorance and a complete failure of the primary task of journalism, INVESTIGATING AND REPORTING THE FACTS.

Yup!

'Since Mr. Duranty wasn't deliberately deceptive, but only dangerously incompetent, we are not revoking his award for journalistic excellence.'

See also #30.

31 posted on 11/21/2003 8:09:29 PM PST by mrustow (no tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pogo101; Scenic Sounds
Another take on Pulitzers....

In 1930, Sinclair Lewis became the first American author to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. The award reflected his ground-breaking work in the 1920s on books such as Main Street, Babbitt, and Arrowsmith. He was also awarded the Pulitzer Prize for 'Arrowsmith', but declined it because he believed that the Pulitzer was meant for books that celebrated American wholesomeness and his novels, which were quite critical, should not be awarded the prize.
32 posted on 11/21/2003 8:39:07 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
Disgraceful New York Times Pulitzer bump.
33 posted on 11/21/2003 9:44:31 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
Yes, the prize is now so damaged, that it IS worthless.

What I'd like, is for the Pulitzers, en mass, complain. Unfortunately, they have little to no sway with the committee, so that's not going to happen.

34 posted on 11/21/2003 10:08:40 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Disgraceful New York Times Pulitzer bump.

Yep. It's OK to go after the Nazis but not after the commies. It's some kind of brotherhood thingy.

35 posted on 11/21/2003 10:15:11 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul (I love the smell of winning, the taste of victory, and the joy of each glorious triumph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
Go figure.

Malcolm Muggeridge was a similar Marxist reporter in the USSR at the time (for a British newspaper, I think) -- he may have even known Duranty.

But Muggeridge reported honest stories about what he saw in the Ukraine in the 1920s and 1930s. When he got back to Britain, he was so appalled at the way his stories had been doctored by his newspapers to hide the truth about the Soviets that he became a very conservative writer.

36 posted on 11/21/2003 10:19:11 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I guess, people who were there know better than the ones who were never there. LOL! That's a tagline for you.
37 posted on 11/21/2003 10:25:48 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul (I love the smell of winning, the taste of victory, and the joy of each glorious triumph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
LOL. I'll keep that quote in mind!
38 posted on 11/21/2003 10:29:03 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
BTW AC, I found the song you like….


click on the graphic

39 posted on 11/21/2003 10:35:35 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul (I love the smell of winning, the taste of victory, and the joy of each glorious triumph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
Oh, Victoria -- You just made my weekend!

(Note: If you click on the graphic the song may not play -- I had to save it on my hard drive)

:-)

:-)

:-)

:-)

40 posted on 11/21/2003 10:39:08 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
The Bulshitzer Prize.
41 posted on 11/21/2003 10:39:39 PM PST by vikingchick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Oh no, lol. I'll do better tomorrow.
42 posted on 11/21/2003 10:40:46 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul (I love the smell of winning, the taste of victory, and the joy of each glorious triumph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
You did OK. At least I was able to listen to it!

When that sun is high in that Texas sky,
I'll be buckin' at the county fair.
Amarillo by morning,
Amarillo, I'll be there.

43 posted on 11/21/2003 10:43:15 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
COMMUNISM®

Sure it killed tens of millions of people, but it's not like you knew them personally!

44 posted on 11/21/2003 10:50:08 PM PST by stands2reason (What you see at fight club is a generation of men raised by women. ~Chuck Palahniuk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
A more fulsome version of the AP piece in today's Washington Times:

N.Y. Times keeps disputed 1932 Pulitzer
By Larry McShane
ASSOCIATED PRESS

    NEW YORK — The 1932 Pulitzer prize awarded to a New York Times reporter accused of deliberately ignoring the forced famine in Ukraine will not be revoked, the board for the journalism awards said yesterday.
    "The board determined that there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case," said a statement from the Pulitzer Prize Board, which met yesterday.
    The decision was immediately criticized by Ukrainian groups, who had complained Walter Duranty's reports intentionally made no mention of the 1932-1933 forced famine in Ukraine that killed as many as 7 million people. Josef Stalin's regime created the famine to force Ukrainian peasants into surrendering their land.
    "The Pulitzer Prize committee must review their standards of journalistic integrity," said Michael Sawkiw, president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America. He added that his group will continue to press for revocation.
    A Pulitzer subcommittee began a review of Mr. Duranty's work in April. In October, a historian assigned by the New York Times to review the winning work said the award should be revoked because there is a "serious lack of balance in his writing."
    "For the sake of the New York Times' honor, they should take the prize away," Mark von Hagen, a Columbia University history professor said.
    The board's statement pointed out the award was given for 13 articles written and published during 1931 — before the famine. It was the second time since 1990 that the Pulitzer Board has decided against revoking the award.
    The review of Mr. Duranty's work did find that his 1931 work, "measured by today's standards, falls seriously short," the statement said. The board's finding echoed those of scholars and the Times itself, he added.
    But the board ultimately decided revocation "would be a momentous step" that it opted not to take.
    In the 86-year history of the awards, no Pulitzer has ever been revoked. The prize was once returned, however, when Janet Cooke, a reporter for The Washington Post, surrendered her Pulitzer in 1981 after admitting she had fabricated stories.
    Mr. Duranty covered the Soviet Union for the Times from 1922 to 1941, earning acclaim for an exclusive 1929 interview with Stalin.
    He was eventually criticized for reporting the communist line rather than the facts. According to the 1990 book "Stalin's Apologist," Mr. Duranty knew of the famine, but ignored the atrocities to preserve his access to Stalin.
    The Times has also distanced itself from Mr. Duranty's work. The reporter's 1932 Pulitzer is displayed with this caveat: "Other writers in the Times and elsewhere have discredited this coverage."
    In a statement yesterday, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who privately had made a recommendation to the board after receiving Mr. von Hagen's review, said he respected and commended the Pulitzer Board's decision.
    "All of us at The Times are fully aware of the many defects in Walter Duranty's journalism, as we have and will continue to acknowledge," he said. "We regret his lapses and we join the Pulitzer Board in extending sympathy to those who suffered in the famine."

45 posted on 11/22/2003 5:57:20 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
Of course I have read articles that say he admitted in private what he denied in print.

Duranty's Deception
Insight ^ | July 7, 2003 | John Berlau

And Duranty's reporting was filled with more than just "defects," the phrase in the Times' 2003 apologies. It contained information that, by several accounts, he knew to be false. The Soviets did keep tight control over foreign journalists, but Duranty offered Stalin his eager cooperation. In 1933, at the height of the famine, Duranty wrote that "village markets [were] flowing with eggs, fruit, poultry, vegetables, milk and butter. ... A child can see this is not famine but abundance." Reports such as these were crucial, historians say, in the decision of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to grant the Soviet Union diplomatic recognition in 1933. But a British Embassy dispatch from 1933, reported in Conquest's The Harvest of Sorrow and then in S.J. Taylor's definitive 1990 Duranty biography, Stalin's Apologist, quotes Duranty as admitting to British Embassy officials in Moscow that "the Ukraine had been bled white [and] the peasants were 'double-crossed' by the government." In his words, it was "quite possible that as many as 10 million people may have died directly or indirectly from lack of food in the Soviet Union during the past year."

That whole article bears close rereading in immediate conjunction with the Times continuing psuedo-self-absolvetion on the Duranty matter. (RETURN THE PRIZE IF YOU REALLY MEAN IT!) It exposes the real record and skewers the lies and spin behind the Times' false claims to have come (adequately) clean.

46 posted on 11/22/2003 6:14:21 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BillF
That prize isn't what it used to be, but then again journalism isn't what it used to be.
47 posted on 11/22/2003 11:20:55 AM PST by Doctor Raoul (How can they call it a "Peace March" when they unconditionally support those who kill our soldiers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: At _War_With_Liberals
Look at the way CNN shilled for Baathists in the past decade.

Eason Jordan is a bloody whore. Literally.

48 posted on 11/22/2003 11:23:00 AM PST by Doctor Raoul (How can they call it a "Peace March" when they unconditionally support those who kill our soldiers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
A Pulitzer subcommittee began a review of Mr. Duranty's work in April. In October, a historian assigned by the New York Times to review the winning work said the award should be revoked because there is a "serious lack of balance in his writing."

That has never bothered the NYT.

"For the sake of the New York Times' honor, they should take the prize away," Mark von Hagen, a Columbia University history professor said.

"Honor" and "New York Times" is like saying "matter" and "anti-matter".

49 posted on 11/22/2003 11:25:42 AM PST by Doctor Raoul (How can they call it a "Peace March" when they unconditionally support those who kill our soldiers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson