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

Skip to comments.

Pulitzer Prize board begins review of Duranty's award (more bad publicity for the New York Times)
The Ukrainian Weekly ^ | 5/25/03 | Andrew Nynka

Posted on 06/01/2003 6:56:43 PM PDT by DPB101

PARSIPPANY, N.J. - In response to an international campaign, The Pulitzer Prize Board has begun an "appropriate and serious review" of the award given to Walter Duranty of The New York Times, an administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes said on May 20.

The board's administrator said in a telephone interview that the review began as a result of the thousands of letters and e-mails the board received in early May. A confidential review by the 18-member Pulitzer Prize Board is intended to seriously consider all relevant information regarding Mr. Duranty's award, said Sig Gissler, administrator for the Pulitzer Prizes.

"There are no written procedures regarding prize revocation. There are no standards or precedents for revoking the prize. We look at what would be reasonable and analyze the factors that would have to be considered," Mr. Gissler said, referring to the fact that since the creation of the Pulitzer Prizes in 1917 the board has never revoked an award.

The letters, postcards and e-mails the Pulitzer office received since the campaign began this spring have not yet been accurately counted, but Mr. Gissler did say that the number was in the thousands.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anditonlytook71years; commiepropaganda; duranty; falsification; mediafraud; medialies; newyorktimes; nyt; pulitzer; pulitzerprize; schadenfreude; thenewyorktimes; walterduranty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
Petition to strip the New York Times of Duranty's Pulitzer here

Full Text of Duranty's 1933 report from Moscow Here.

Full Text of dispatches from Moscow by Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge which contradict the New York Times Here.

1 posted on 06/01/2003 6:56:43 PM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Thank God this is finally happening.
2 posted on 06/01/2003 7:00:04 PM PDT by keithtoo (Luvya Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Obviously the current owners and operators of the Times are not responsible for Duranty's repulsive deeds. However, they ARE responsible for failing to voluntarily give back the price, an non-action which shows that these are repulsive people.

This non-action is in line with the Times' love affair with Castro, which extends to recent times, and with its campaign against the liberation of the people of Iraq. While on domestic policy, the Times is disturbing because these people like to lie, on foreign policy, the Times is morally repulsive.

3 posted on 06/01/2003 7:05:48 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
It's about 70 years too late, but better late than never. besides, anything that makes the RAT media look like the useful idiots they are is a good thing.
4 posted on 06/01/2003 7:06:27 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DPB101; Timesink
WooHoo!!! About time!

Good news ping, Timesink :-)
5 posted on 06/01/2003 7:11:01 PM PDT by Tamzee ( It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. - J. Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
My e-mail to add my name to the petition is on its way! Let's spread this one far and wide, and bombard the Pulitzer board.
6 posted on 06/01/2003 7:14:14 PM PDT by CFC__VRWC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
If the freepers are behind this campaign then the LEFT should be very worried because the title "No one left to lie to." will soon be on more books than the one about Klinton.
7 posted on 06/01/2003 7:14:47 PM PDT by q_an_a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66; Grampa Dave; dix
The New York Times even lies about how their lies were uncovered. From a list of Pulitzer prize winners at the paper's website:
1932 Walter Duranty, for reporting of the news from Russia. (Other writers in The Times and elsewhere have discredited this coverage.)

Welsh investigation journalist Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge were telling the truth when the Times was lying. The paper had to know they were printing lies when they printed them. Duranty's notorious 1933 article above was a hit piece on Jones for exposing the crimes of Stalin. In addition, Duranty wasn't the only Times reporter covering for Stalin. Harold Denny followed Duranty at the papers Moscow office and he too denied the genocide which was occurring.

The least the paper could do is acknowledge its slander of Jones and give him and Muggeridge credit instead of saying writers "elsewhere" discredited Duranty's work. Muggeridge lost his job at the Guardian for telling the truth. Jones was killed in China in 1935 and his work has slipped into obscurity.

8 posted on 06/01/2003 7:20:59 PM PDT by DPB101 (Support H.R. 1305 to cut the Federal tax on beer in half)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
current owners and operators of the Times

Actually, the Sulzbergers have been in charge for a very long time, well over a century.
9 posted on 06/01/2003 7:22:12 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
bump for later
10 posted on 06/01/2003 7:31:34 PM PDT by redbaiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Mr. Duranty's ghost lives today in the bodies of Peter Arnet, Dan Rather, and all the others who took money or privilege from Saddam not to report the truth about murder, torture, and rape.
11 posted on 06/01/2003 7:34:39 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
ping
12 posted on 06/01/2003 7:37:53 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
This issue was actually raised at a shareholder's meeting a year or two ago. Someone asked if they would take Duranty's Pulitzer off of their wall.

The response was an emphatic no. The current crop can't stand to take it down, because that Pulitzer is a long-standing reminder of their constant love affair with murderous revolutionary butchers.

I'll pop a cork on the best bottle of champagne that I can afford, when Duranty's valentine to Stalin come crashing down.
13 posted on 06/01/2003 7:45:54 PM PDT by horse_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Timesink; Liz

14 posted on 06/01/2003 7:50:23 PM PDT by martin_fierro (A v v n c v l v s M a x i m v s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
The NYT is attempting a simple case of pretend damage control because the Ukrainians' voices are finally being heard. Waiting in the wings are the stories of soviet mass atrocities in many other countries.
15 posted on 06/01/2003 7:51:53 PM PDT by HISSKGB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HISSKGB
Actually, I don't think the NYT is doing a damn thing. The Times could have given back the prise at any time, or taken some other symbolic action such as taking it off display. It didn't. It is the Pulitzer committee that is belateledly reconsidering.
16 posted on 06/01/2003 7:55:47 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Praise God! It's about time! Thanks for posting, DPB.
17 posted on 06/01/2003 8:10:26 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
Love your screen name! I read the Walter Owen translation of Hernandez some time back.
18 posted on 06/01/2003 8:18:33 PM PDT by Reverend Bob (Who always appreciates obscure literary references.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Reverend Bob
Muchas gracias! <|:)~
19 posted on 06/01/2003 8:22:17 PM PDT by martin_fierro (A v v n c v l v s M a x i m v s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; Loyalist; =Intervention=; PianoMan; GOPJ; Miss Marple; Tamsey; ...

Schadenfreude

This is the New York Times Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.

What? They're taking away his fine prize? Oh, I don't care. I'm dead anyway.


20 posted on 06/01/2003 8:35:57 PM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Obviously the current owners and operators of the Times are not responsible for Duranty's repulsive deeds. However, they ARE responsible for failing to voluntarily give back the price, an non-action which shows that these are repulsive people.

Actually no, its the same family, running it with the same policy's and core system. If my father does a wrong with the family business, and I take over, and know of it, and it can be rectified, then I have an obligation to do so. They made no attempt to rectify the error and in fact, condoned it, by still crediting the author with the pulitizer prize and by leaving it hanging to this day as a reminder and a motivation for there authors.

21 posted on 06/01/2003 8:41:13 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
bump
22 posted on 06/01/2003 9:05:30 PM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Great one. Thanks for the ping.
23 posted on 06/01/2003 9:09:17 PM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
If you're still awake to see this reply, and you think about it, I think you will agree our difference is semantic.

First, while we colloquially say the NYT is owned by the same family, actually and legally the ownership has changed, because different individuals own the majority of NYT stock. The stock is not still in the dead guy's estate.

Second, this does not matter so much, because we both agree that the current owners are morally culpable for failing to correct the moral failing of thier predecessors. So I don't see a substantive difference (look to my 1st post, where I say the same thing.)

24 posted on 06/01/2003 9:37:57 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Our differences are minor at best, I always had the impression, that the current owner, now the son, was also the majority owner of stock having recieved all of his fathers shares from the estate.
25 posted on 06/01/2003 9:52:15 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot; HISSKGB; MadIvan; dix; nopardons; pbear8; ComtedeMaistre; alnick; knews_hound; ..
Mr. Duranty's ghost lives today in the bodies of Peter Arnett. . .

Funny you mention him. The New York Times helped make Arnett.In 1969 James B.(Scotty) Reston bestowed lavish praise on Arnett, calling him "courageous". Many didn't agree and wrote to correct Reston. Here is Reston's reply to one such letter.

Reston himself won a Pulitzer in 1945 for "news and interpretive articles on the Dumbarton Oaks Security Conference."

Like to find those articles. Dumbarton set up the UN. Three Soviet Agents--Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie--were major players at Dumbarton. Did Reston suspect anything was amiss? Or did he praise the three?

Another problematic New York Times Pulitzer is the one awarded to Sydney H. Schanberg in 1976 for his reports on the coverage of the fall of Lon Nol and the rise to power of Pol Pot. Considering what the Khymer Rouge did, Schanberg was off the mark when he wrote:

"It would be tendentious to forecast such abnormal behavior (mass executions) as national policy under a Communist government once the war is over."

Stripping Duranty of the Pulitzer might just be the beginning of a reexamination of many others.

26 posted on 06/01/2003 10:03:17 PM PDT by DPB101 (Support H.R. 1305 to cut the Federal tax on beer in half)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
And as I suggested in an earlier thread, let us not forget the heroic efforts of Timesman Herbert L. Matthews in installing Fidel Castro in Cuba. I remember a bit of black humor from the period: a cartoon of Castro, captioned with the Times advertising slogan, "I got my job through the New York Times."
27 posted on 06/01/2003 10:12:28 PM PDT by T'wit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
I want them to dig up Lillian Hellman and bury the b*tch in North Korea or Cuba.
28 posted on 06/01/2003 10:12:53 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Is Hell freezing over ?

Great news and many thanks for the ping. :-)

So many lies, so much propaganda, and still the N.Y. Times refuses to admit its complicity is so much evil. It's long past due, that they are exposed.

29 posted on 06/01/2003 10:19:55 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Stripping Duranty of the Pulitzer might just be the beginning of a reexamination of many others.

And then the Nobel committee can take back the peace prizes from Arafat and Carter.

30 posted on 06/01/2003 11:01:00 PM PDT by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: T'wit
Matthews was not simply deluded. He was working with traitors in the State Department to get Castro into power as this Senate transcript from 1960 shows.

Matthews front page New York Times love letter to Fidel is here

Times reporter Harold Denny on Christmas in Moscow at the height of the terror: "Russia tonight is having the gayest celebration since the revolution.... Moscow tonight powerfully reminded a sojourner from the Western world of any town in America on Christmas Eve.... All the worker's clubs are having special entertainment, and in every home friends are gathered around boards groaning with solid and liquid cheer."

Denny's comments on that show trials were that most thought "justice had been done" and just because torture was used to extract confessions " does not necessarily prove that the confessions in essence were untrue."

31 posted on 06/01/2003 11:20:38 PM PDT by DPB101 (Support H.R. 1305 to cut the Federal tax on beer in half)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DPB101; All
-The Old Grey Info-Slut... the NYT/Jayson Blair Affair--
32 posted on 06/02/2003 1:53:54 AM PDT by backhoe (Diversity = Everyone looks different, yet thinks alike...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
I must say I am enjoying this. This scandal proves one thing-- the media no longer get a free pass. This is their Enron. We simply must be as merciless as they are.

The Left that demands the taking down of statues of historical figures they despise, the changing of names of buildings, the deconstruction of everything, the re-examination of all of the country's heroes, should have to pay pennance for its Stalinists, its useful idiots, its rank liars.

I say revoking Mr. Duranty's Pulitzer is a start.
33 posted on 06/02/2003 2:42:10 AM PDT by faithincowboys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
"It would be tendentious to forecast such abnormal behavior (mass executions)
as national policy under a Communist government once the war is over."

How nice of Schanberg. Musta thought the murderous Pol Pot would be more, er,
ah, "civilized" after the confidence expressed in him by toe-sucking liberal Schanberg.

These "tolerant and compassionate" liberals are disgusting.

34 posted on 06/02/2003 2:45:43 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: faithincowboys
I say revoking Mr. Duranty's Pulitzer is a start.

Yes, it would be sweet indeed. Of course, if I weren't a Freeper, I would never even have heard about this - my local paper is a New York Times paper.

The Times, in addition to producing its own version of reality in NYC, controls an enormous number of regional and even small town newspapers. Making changes at the Mother-ship could change things in newspapers all over the country.

35 posted on 06/02/2003 2:57:20 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Stripping Duranty of the Pulitzer might just be the beginning of a reexamination of many others.

Sure made my day. We need also to examine the Pulitzer people for their shady prize-awarding modus operandi.

36 posted on 06/02/2003 3:18:23 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
Nice "ping."
37 posted on 06/02/2003 3:26:10 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DPB101; dighton; aculeus; general_re; L,TOWM; hellinahandcart; Constitution Day
"So what if they take it away.
I got a million of 'em!"

Inka-Dinka-Do
38 posted on 06/02/2003 3:39:39 AM PDT by BlueLancer (Der Elite Møøsenspåånkængruppen ØberKømmååndø (EMØØK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlueLancer
So it's true..."Everybody wants to get into the act!"
39 posted on 06/02/2003 6:15:15 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
"Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are."
40 posted on 06/02/2003 6:20:00 AM PDT by BlueLancer (Der Elite Møøsenspåånkængruppen ØberKømmååndø (EMØØK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Thanks for your hard work and GREAT links!

I'm glad that the Ukrainians have never let this go.

And folks like yourself, either.

;^)
41 posted on 06/02/2003 6:32:53 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DPB101; Luis Gonzalez
The NY Slimes has been lying to us for 7 decades.

They have shielded the mass murderers of the Communists for 7 decades.

They still side with Castro and other communists dictators and leaders in the world.
42 posted on 06/02/2003 8:25:18 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Can anyone ever remember the NY Slimes printing a truthful story? I can't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DPB101; Timesink; MeeknMing
Thanks for all of your great documentation re the trail of blood left by the NY Slimes for at least 7 decades.

I would make one suggestion. That you store these article in their entire format on another server.

In the summer of 2002, I has a lot of very damaging data on the envirals in Oregon and California and other states how their goals/actions had create tinder boxes in the forests of Oregon and California. When the fires really broke loose, they just erased a lot of that data from their websites. Google and other searches cited the erased/removed data. So it was lost.

I believe that Free Republic will now allow monthly donors to store data on FR's server for free. You can ask John Robinson about this and how to do it.

We have seen the same disappearance of great political cartoons that really $crew the lefties. So Meeknming now stores these great cartoons on his on server.
43 posted on 06/02/2003 8:44:16 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Can anyone ever remember the NY Slimes printing a truthful story? I can't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DPB101; All
The letters, postcards and e-mails the Pulitzer office received since the campaign began this spring have not yet been accurately counted, but Mr. Gissler did say that the number was in the thousands.

From http://www.pulitzer.org/Resources/resources.html:

Contact Information
(please check our FAQ page first)

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

44 posted on 06/02/2003 8:50:58 AM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
I'm looking forward to reading.Thanks for the ping.Great links!
45 posted on 06/02/2003 9:22:56 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Thanks for the link.
46 posted on 06/02/2003 9:37:46 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

47 posted on 06/02/2003 10:04:40 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
You betcha!

Regarding atrocities?

That Bloody Century Pass'd- "We have nothing to fear but Governments Themselves..."

48 posted on 06/02/2003 10:30:16 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
The Pulitzer judges are as biased as the New York Times. The are a lot of prizes awarded that never should have been.
49 posted on 06/02/2003 10:43:40 AM PDT by Temple Owl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: faithincowboys; Grampa Dave; dix; HISSKGB; Fracas; nopardons; Liz
We simply must be as merciless as they are. The Left that demands the taking down of statues of historical figures they despise, the changing of names of buildings, the deconstruction of everything, the re-examination of all of the country's heroes, should have to pay pennance for its Stalinists, its useful idiots, its rank liars.

Exactly. Blair is just an opening, meaningless in the bigger picture. We have 70 years of New York Times lies to examine. The papers of many of the players, such as James B. (Scotty) Reston, are now archived at various universities. There is a gold mine of information waiting to be unearthed.

Harrison Salisbury won a Pultizer in 1955. Mona Charon writes in Useful Idiots--How Liberals Got It Wrong In The Cold War And Still Blame America First

Harrison Salisbury, a New York Times columnist, traveled to North Vietnam in late 1966 and early 1967 and reported that the U.S. was deliberately targeting the civilian population. The effects of those reports, appearing in the nation's most prestigious and influential newspaper, cannot be overstated. Yet as Guenter Lewy reported in his book America in Vietnam;
Only after the articles appeared did a small number of persons learn that Salisbury, in effect, had given the authority of his byline to unverified Communist propaganda and that the New York Times had printed this information as though Salisbury had established it himself with his own on-the-scene reporting . . .The dispatches dealing with the bombing of the city of Nam Dinh had borrowed extensively from a North Vietnamese propaganda pamphlet, Report on U.S. War Crimes in Nam-Dinh City . . .
The way the Times uses its alleged impartially to push a left wing view is illustrated by a debate at the Harvard Law School forum on November 6, 1946.

David Dallin, a Russian who fled the Soviet Union in 1922, argued that the Soviets were expansionist and gearing up their military for a conflict with the west.

Arthur Upham Pope, biographer of Litvinoff, argued the Soviets military posture was defensive.

Salisbury's pretense was to be a neutral third pary. He gave an analyse of the Soviet economy (based on his reporting on the Red Army's march to Berlin), said the Soviets were in no condition to face another war and their military buildup was based on a fear of the U.S.

Salisbury knew better. He was aware the U.S. had demobilized after WWII while the Soviets had increased the power of their military.

50 posted on 06/02/2003 11:06:36 AM PDT by DPB101 (Support H.R. 1305 to cut the Federal tax on beer in half)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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