The Pulitzer Prize Archive. Volume 17 Complete Historical Handbook of the Pulitzer Prize System 1917-2000: Decision-Making Processes in all Award Categories based on unpublished Sources [Reprint 2010 ed.] 9783110939125, 9783598301872

Citation preview

THE PULITZER PRIZE ARCHIVE A History and Anthology of Award-winning Materials in Journalism, Letters, and Arts Series Editor: Heinz-Dietrich Fischer Ruhr University, Bochum Federal Republic of Germany

PART F: DOCUMENTATION

Volume 17

K · G · Säur München 2003

Complete Historical Handbook of the Pulitzer Prize System 1917 - 2000 Decision-Making Processes in all Award Categories based on unpublished Sources

by Heinz-D. Fischer and Erika J. Fischer

K · G · Säur München 2003

Gefördert durch Mittel der Stiftung Presse-Haus NRZ Essen

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek

Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddh.de.

Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier Printed on acid-free paper Alle Rechte vorbehalten / All Rigths Strictly Reserved K.G. Säur Verlag GmbH , München 2003 Printed in Germany by Strauss Offsetdruck, Mörlenbach Bound by Buchbinderei Schaumann, Darmstadt Cover Design by Manfred Link , München ISBN 3-598-30187-1 ISBN 3-598-30170-7 (Complete Set)

v

FOREWORD

To speak of "Pulitzer Prizes" means to speak of a highly differentiated system of awards for outstanding works in various media areas. Since their creation about eight and a half decades ago, the bestowal of the Prizes has without doubt become a public institution in America. Along with the Nobel Prizes, which are awarded annually in Stockholm and Oslo, and along with the Academy Awards ("Oscars"), which are awarded in Los Angeles, the Pulitzer Prizes belong to the most prestigious honors worldwide. They are given for first class journalistic, literary and artistic achievements on the basis of a strict system of selection and assessment criteria. This book takes a close inside-look at the complex structure of the Pulitzer-Prize system and its various categories of awards. The development of each category is described chronologically. Each description begins with the year the category was established. An excellent source of information could be used for an exact reconstruction of the decisive debates of the individual juries: Due to the friendly help of the Pulitzer Prize Board we enjoyed the privilege of being able to study all existing approximately 1200 unpublished jury reports with a total of about 3000 pages. This book, therefore, is the first general work on all Pulitzer Prizes from 1917 through 2000 which is based exclusively on authentic sources. The focus is placed on the precise description of those discussions which led to the selection of the prize winners. Secondary sources are only used in a small number of passages where they are necessary to point out complex facts. Because of the large amount of material consulted, it was not possible to aim at stylistic elegance. Rather, the plain analyses of decision-making processes and their results was our main focus. With regard to the contents of the book, we were guided by the intention of devoting the main chapters to prizes which belong together thematically. This "dramaturgic" concept enables the reader to observe the interdependencies between different media which are honored by Pulitzer Prizes. We have benefited from our long experience in studying the history of the Pulitzer Prizes and from the publication of - up to this point about twenty-five books on the subject, which, among other things, have documented many prize-winning works. In the last two decades of uninterrupted study of the award system, we have always been able to cooperate closely with the Pulitzer Prize administrators: Professor Richard T. Baker (1978-1981), Professor Robert C. Christopher (1982-1992) and Professor Seymour Topping (1993-2002) have always been open to our numerous requests for material. The same is true of their close colleagues, Rose Valenstein, Robin Kuzen and Edward M. Kliment. We are also thankful to Bernard C. Crystal, curator of the Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Columbia University, New York, who has enabled us to constantly access the Pulitzer Prize text collection he is responsible for.

VI

A special thanks goes to the board of curators of the foundation Presse-Haus NRZ, Essen, which supported our time-consuming research in New York and other American and European cities. The managing directors of the foundation, the late Professor Dietrich Oppenberg and Dipl.-Kfm. Heinrich Meyer, have always shown great sympathy for our projects. We are also very much indebted to Mrs. Ingrid Dickhut at the Ruhr University, Bochum, who designet the layout of all books and compiled the indexes for each volume. Some proofreading and translation was done by Mrs. Verena Albert, Mrs. Britta Duddeck and Mr. Tim Rikeit. We also wish to thank the following people who have aided our research in different ways: Tony Abraham (New York), Daniel Boehnk (Paris), Anita Clesle (Düsseldorf), Joseph Elbert (Washington, D.C.), Charles Ferguson (Boston), Larry Heinzerling (New York), Andrea A. Palmer (New York) and John Pennine (New York). Bochum, FRG July, 2003

E.J.F./H.-D.F

VII

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

V

1. 1.1 1.2 1.3

PRIZES NAMED AFTER JOSEPH PULITZER Life of the Journalist and Publisher Instigator of various Benefactions Operation of the Award System

1 1 4 7

2. 2.1 2.2 2.3

PRIZES FOR VARIOUS PRESS-RELATED FIELDS Meritorious Public Service Award Newspaper History Award School of Journalism Development Award

13 13 36 36

3. 3.1 3.2 3.3

PRIZES FOR REPORTING ON DOMESTIC TOPICS Reporting Award Telegraphic National Reporting Award National Reporting Award

39 39 49 51

4. 4.1 4.2 4.3

PRIZES FOR REPORTING ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS Correspondence Award International Telegraphic Reporting Award International Reporting Award

67 67 74 76

5. 5.1 5.2 5.3

PRIZES FOR REPORTING ON REGIONAL EVENTS Local Reporting Award Local Reporting, Edition Time Award Local General Spot News Reporting Award

97 97 98 102

6. 6.1 6.2 6.3

PRIZES FOR DIVERSE REPORTAGE CLASSES General News Reporting Award Spot News Reporting Award Breaking News Reporting Award

109 109 111 113

VIII 7. 7.1 7.2 7.3

PRIZES FOR RECHERCHE JOURNALISM EFFORTS Local Reporting, No Edition Time Award Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Award Investigative Reporting Award

115 115 118 124

8. 8.1 8.2 8.3

PRIZES FOR GENRES OF OPINION JOURNALISM Editorial Writing Award Commentary Writing Award Criticism Writing Award

129 129 155 167

9. 9.1 9.2 9.3

PRIZES FOR SPECIFIC JOURNALISM DIVISIONS Feature Writing Award Explanatory Journalism Award Specialized/Beat Reporting Award

181 181 186 192

10. 10.1 10.2 10.3

PRIZES FOR PICTORIAL JOURNALISM AREAS Photography Award Spot/Breaking News Photography Award Feature Photography Award

197 197 207 218

11. 11.1 11.2 11.3

PRIZES FOR TOP ARTISTIC ACHIEVEMENTS Drama Award Music Award Cartoon Award

231 231 261 280

12. 12.1 12.2 12.3

PRIZES FOR FACT-ORIENTED LITERATURE American History Award Biography/Autobiography Award General Non-Fiction Award

303 303 327 355

13. 13.1 13.2 13.3

PRIZES FOR AREAS OF BELLES-LETTRES Novel Award Fiction Award Poetry Award

371 371 381 397

14. 14.1 14.2 14.3

PRIZES FOR EXTRAORDINARY MERITS Special Journalism Award Special Letters Award Special Music Award

427 427 430 431

AFTERWORD

433

BIBLIOGRAPHY

437

INDEX

441

This volume is dedicated to Prof. Dr. Ralph Lynn Lowenstein, Dean Emeritus, College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Gainesville

1.

PRIZES NAMED AFTER JOSEPH PULITZER

He was "the son of a wealthy grain merchant of Magyar-Jewish origin and a German mother who was a devout Roman Catholic,"1 an author tells in short words the background of one of the most prominent American media personalities of the past.

1.1

Life of the Journalist and Publisher

Joseph Pulitzer was born in Mako, Hungary, on April 10, 1847. His father retired in Budapest and Joseph grew up and was educated there in private schools and by tutors. At the age of seventeen, he decided to become a soldier. In turn he tried to enlist in the Austrian Army, Napoleon's Foreign Legion for duty in Mexico, and the British Army for service in India. But Pulitzer was rebuffed because of weak eyesight and frail health. However, in Hamburg, Germany, he encountered a bounty recruiter for the U.S. Union Army and contracted to enlist.2 He left the ship at Boston and served for one year in the Lincoln Cavalry. In 1865, Joseph Pulitzer moved to St. Louis where he started to work as a mule hostler, then as a baggage handler and waiter. Pulitzer became duly naturalized as an U.S. citizen on March 6, 1867, and he got the post of secretary of the German Society. He frequently visited the city's Mercantile Library to study English and law. It was at that library that Joseph Pulitzer met two editors of the leading German language daily, the Westliche Post of St. Louis, and in 1868 they offered him a job at the newspaper. In 1872 the young Pulitzer, who in the meantime had built a reputation as a tireless enterprising journalist, was offered a controlling interest in the paper by the nearly bankrupt owners. So, at the age of twenty-five, Pulitzer became a publisher.3 However, disagreement between himself and other stockholders caused him to sell his shares for $30,000 shortly afterwards.4 He left St. Louis and traveled to Europe to visit relatives, staying a considerable time while he developed ideas about his future work.5 After he returned to the U.S., Pulitzer remained much interested in journalism. On December 9, 1878, he purchased the bankrupt St. Louis Dispatch at auction for $2,500. Within a few days, Pulitzer and the owner of the St. Louis Post, a competitive daily, agreed to consolidate their newspapers, and on December 12, the first issue of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch appeared on the newsstands.6 After another year, Pulitzer became the exclusive owner and editor-in-chief of the paper. Under his direction, it became more and more successful, netting a profit of $45,000 in 1881, which in turn allowed Pulitzer to hire several well-known journalists, making the 1 Seymour Topping, Joseph Pulitzer and the Pulitzer Prizes, in: Elizabeth A. Brennan and Elizabeth C. Clarage, Who's Who of Pulitzer Prize Winners, Phoenix, Az., 1999, p. VIII. 2 Ibid. 3 Cf. Harvey Saalberg, The Westliche Post of St. Louis: A Daily Newspaper for German-Americans, 1857-1938, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo., 1967. 4 Cf. Horst Siebert, Pulitzer als Journalist und Verleger, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Munich, Germany, 1956, p. 20; see also Denis Brian, Joseph Pulitzer - A Life, New York 2001. 5 Cf. Gerhard J. Laub, Joseph Pulitzer - Schöpfer der modernen amerikanischen Tagespresse, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Vienna, Austria, 1960, p. 20. 6 Cf. Horst Siebert, Pulitzer als Journalist und Verleger, op. cit., pp. 24 ff.

Joseph Pulitzer (1847-1911)

Post-Dispatch even more of a success.7 In this way, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch quickly became one of the Midwest's leading papers. In 1883, when the newspaper was a very profitable success, Pulitzer made the move to New York that would put him in competition and eventually harsh conflict with other local papers. Learning that the pin-down New York World, a morning paper with a circulation of about 15,000, was for sale, he proceeded to buy it by May, making the just installment with profits from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The remaining payments he would make with surpluses generated by the World itself.8 Pulitzer succeeded in transforming the formerly unattractive little paper into an epoch-making newspaper of the "new journalism" in no time. Soon, the circulation increased and the paper became so highly esteemed that one could hardly imagine it being absent from New York daily life.9 "However sensational Mr. Pulitzer's ideas of news presentation might have seemed in the staid days of his first appearance in New York," a biographer states, "his editorial views were then and always of the soundest and highest character in the interest of a free government and the public welfare."10 The public would come to agree and in 1885 elect him to Congress. Nonetheless, though he took up his congressional duties with conviction, he was unable to fulfill his tasks completely because of his numerous obligations.11 Pulitzer was able to double the circulation of the World within four months. Selling it at the prize of two cents, he forced the other New York newspapers not only to change their contents and typography in order to compete, but also to lower their prices. By September 1884, little more than one year after Joseph Pulitzer had bought the newspaper, the World had reached a circulation of 100,000, a marvelous figure at the time. When the circulation passed the 250,000-mark, Pulitzer ordered commemorative silver medals for his journalists and for important advertisers. In addition to the World, a second daily edition, the Evening World, was created at the end of 1887. The papers reached a combined daily circulation of 374,000 in the early nineties.12 In 1890, Pulitzer stated proudly that the World yielded an annual profit of $ 1,200,000, more than any other newspaper.13 The financial situation was so good that Pulitzer was able to build a new publishing-house at the cost of $2,500,000.14 The era of Pulitzer's greatest journalistic and financial success, however, was massed by an eye disease. At his physicians's advice, Pulitzer withdrew from all commercial activities, including the control of the World, in 1890. As one of his biographers writes, Pulitzer lived in a world of vanishing twilight and dark dusk then which transformed the faces of the people into a deep shadow for nearly twenty years. Pulitzer stent the last five years of his life in complete blindness.15 Together with his family, he lived in Manhattan. He also had residences at Bar Harbor (Maine), JekyI Island (Georgia) and in Europe. Joseph Pulitzer died on October 29, 1911, aboard his steam yacht 'Liberty' in Charleston Harbor, S.C.16 7 Cf. Julian S. Rammelkamp, Pulitzer's Post-Dispatch, Princeton, N.J., 1967. 8 Cf. Don C. Seitz, Joseph Pulitzer. His Life and Letters, New York 1924, pp. 129 ff. 9 Cf. James W. Barrett, Joseph Pulitzer and his World, New York 1941; George Juergens, Joseph Pulitzer and the New York World, Princeton, N.J., 1966. 10 Don C. Seitz, Joseph Pulitzer, op. cit., p. 151. 11 Ibid., p. 152. 12 Cf. Gerhard J. Laub, Joseph Pulitzer, op. cit., pp. 42 f. 13 Cf. ibid., p. 55.

14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Don C. Seitz, Joseph Pulitzer, op. cit., p. 415; Denis Brian, Pulitzer, op. cit., p. 386.

1.2

Instigator of various Benefactions

During the last phase of his life, Joseph Pulitzer had been thinking about the possibility of supporting better education in several fields. In 1889, he had established scholarships for the higher education of poor children from public schools of New York City. And several years later, he gave $ 100.000 as an endowment for the erection of new buildings at Columbia University.17 Pulitzer changed some occasional endowments into constant obligations in the course of time. The summer of 1892 found Joseph Pulitzer in Baden-Baden, Germany, for treatment. It happened that the President of Columbia University was there at the same time, and together they devised a plan for a scholarship, using $250,000 to support deserving students. An investigation runs: "It is also apparent from the records that the Pulitzer scholarships were not the only topic of conversation that summer. (President) Low and Pulitzer were discussing at the same time the publisher's dream of a professional course of training for journalists. Immediately after the Baden-Baden meeting, Pulitzer ordered two of his secretaries to prepare memoranda on a course in journalism for Columbia. Nothing was destined to come immediately from these starts, but the two memoranda are significant for the light they shed on the development of Pulitzer's thinking at this stage."18 But the time had not yet come for Columbia University, however, to seriously discuss the foundation of a course of training for journalists. The university, which showed a strong German influence,19 hesitated to establish such an uncommon course of instruction. More than ten years passed before Pulitzer started a new initiative on the foundation of an academic course of training for journalists. This time, "editors and educators alike were greatly surprised to read in the New York World on Sunday, August 16, 1903, that Joseph Pulitzer, owner of the publication, had endowed a school of journalism at Columbia University with the sum of two million dollars. Plans for the operation of the proposed school were published in detail... A press release from Columbia University in the paper said that... instruction would begin... in the autumn of 1904."20 The announcement of the new course produced both "high praise and harsh criticism from the newspaper and magazine editors of the country."21 In response, Pulitzer decided to feature his ideas about instruction in journalism in a long magazine article which culminated in the prediction: "Before the century closes schools of journalism will be generally accepted as a feature of specialized higher education, like schools of law or of medicine."22 Although there were sufficient means now for a journalism school, it was not realized at first. The only possible explanation had to be the manifold doubts put forward at Columbia University and elsewhere about the appropriateness of an academic education in journalism. Joseph Pulitzer, his eyesight growing worse and worse, again witnessed with bitterness Columbia's failure to found a school of journalism because of formal questions. Embittered, in the closing months of 1903, Pulitzer proposed that the project be postponed only after his death.23 17 18 19 20 21 22

Richard T. Baker, A History of the Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University, New York 1954, p. 18. Ibid., p. 19. Cf. Frederick Paulsen, The German University and German Study, New York 1906. De Forest O'Dell, The History of Journalism Education in the United States, New York 1935, p. 55. Ibid., p. 63. Joseph Pulitzer, The College of Journalism, in: The North American Review (New York), Vol. 178/No. 5, May 1904, p. 642. 23 Richard T. Baker, A History of the Graduate School of Journalism, op. cit., p. 45.

I am deeply interested in the progress and elevation of Journalism, having spent my life in that profession, regarding it as a noble profession and one of unequalled importance for its influence upon the minds and morals of the people. I desire to assist in attracting to this profession young men of character and ability, also to help those already engaged in the profession to acquire the highest moral and intellectual training. There are now special schools for instruction for lawyers, physicians, clergymen, military and naval officers, engineers, architects, and artists, but none for the instruction of journalists. That all other professions and not journalism should have the advantage of special training seems to me contrary to reason. I have felt that I could contribute in no more effectual way to the benefit of my profession and to the public good than by providing for founding and maintaining adequate schools of journalism. To that end I have entered into agreements with the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (hereinafter called Columbia University) dated April loth, 1903, March I9th, 1904, and April i2th, 1904, under and pursuant to which I have turned over to the University in cash and securities at agreed valuations, one million dollars ($1,000,000) or so much thereof as may not have been paid in my lifetime, by my executors, if at any way within seven years after my death my executors then acting and qualified shall be satisfied that for three years the school has been and then is in successful operation. I hereby ratify and confirm the said agreements and direct the performance thereof so far as unperformed, either as now existing or as the same shall hereafter be changed or modified by agreement between me and the University; and, if I should die before the payment of the second or additional one million dollars ($1,000,000) referred to in said agreements, in whole or in part, I give, devise and bequeath to my executors such sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000) after payments made as hereinbefore provided, or so much thereof as may not have been paid in my lifetime, to be held by them on the following trusts...

FIRST PART OF THE PULITZER WILL AS IT PERTAINED TO THE COLUMBIA ENDOWMENT

As his will showed some time later, the foundation of a journalism school represented only a part of Pulitzer's comprehensive concept of education and advanced training. In the beginning of his will he refers to the agreement made with representatives of Columbia University and writes: "I am deeply interested in the progress and elevation of journalism, having spent my life in that profession, regarding it as a noble profession and one of unequalled importance for its influence upon the minds and morals of the people. I desire to assist in attracting to this profession young men of character and ability, also to help those already engaged in the profession to acquire the highest moral and intellectual training... That all other professions and not journalism should have the advantage of special training seems to me contrary to reason."24 The first half of Pulitzer's gift of $2,000,000 was to be placed at the disposal of Columbia University before his death. The second half would be given over no earlier than seven years after his death on the condition that his executors were convinced that the journalism school had worked well for at least three years. In addition to funding the school, Pulitzer provided for prizes. The first Pulitzer-Columbia agreement had specified that a part of the $2,000,000 "be applied to prizes or scholarships for the encouragement of public service, public morals, American literature" etc.25 In his will, Pulitzer detailed further the plan to honor outstanding journalistic and literary performances. "If the plan for awarding the prizes contemplated by the agreements shall not have been agreed upon by Columbia University and myself in my lifetime," the will ran, "then I direct that such prizes shall be awarded and paid in accordance with a plan to be agreed upon by my executors and the University. Such plan must, before its adoption, be approved by the Advisory Board, as then constituted and existing; and it must make provision for the following prizes and scholarships which shall be awarded or paid annually or otherwise as designated:26 1. For the best and most suggestive paper on the future development and improvement of the School of Journalism, or for any one idea that will promise great improvement in the operation of the school... 2. For the most disinterested and meritorious public service rendered by any American newspaper during the year... 3. For the best history of the services rendered to the public by the American press during the preceding year... 4. Five annual traveling scholarships... to be awarded as follows: a. Three to three different graduates respectively of the School of Journalism who shall have passed their examinations with the highest honor... b. One to the student of music in America whom the Advisory Board shall deem the most talented and deserving... c. Another to an art student in America who shall be certified to the Advisory Board by the Society of American Artists as the most promising and deserving... 5. For the best editorial article written during the year, the test of excellence being clearness of style, moral purpose, sound reasoning, and power to influence public opinion in the right direction...

24 Quoted from De Forest O'Dell, The History of Journalism Education in the United States, op. cit., p. 107. 25 Ibid., p. 105. 26 Ibid., p. 108.

6. For the best example of a reporter's work during the year, the test being strict accuracy, terseness, the accomplishment of some public good commanding public attention and respect... 7. For the American novel published during the year which shall best represent the wholesome atmosphere of American life and the highest standard of American manners and manhood... 8. For the original American play performed in New York which shall best represent the educational value and power of the stage in raising the standard of good morals, good taste, and good manners... 9. For the best book of the year upon the history of the United States... 10. For the best American biography teaching patriotic and unselfish service to the people, illustrated by an eminent example..."27 Joseph Pulitzer acquired the idea to bestow such prizes from Alfred Nobel.28 It was his intention to honor journalistic and literary performances, beside an academic education in journalism. Thus Pulitzer's journalistic efforts he made during his lifetime involved (a) the extensive and successful journalistic work he experienced on the reportorial staff and in the administration of the publishing-house, (b) the initiation and financing of an academic school of journalism, and (c) the stressing and honor of important works in different parts of journalism. It must be regarded as a case of personal tragedy that Pulitzer died before the last two items could be realized.29 Shortly after his death, however, the process of establishing a School of Journalism was started, and on July 2, 1912, the foundation stone of the school was laid at Columbia University. It opened officially in the fall of that year before the faculty building could be established.30

1.3

Operation of the Award System

In 1915, when the School of Journalism had been working for three years, "the time was at hand to face the matter of the second million dollars of endowment,"31 and in May of that year Columbia University President Nicholas M. Butler testified to the success of the school's operation and outlined the scheme of the Pulitzer Prizes. He sent an outline of the scheme to the members of the Advisory Board of the School of Journalism, suggesting that the intended prizes "follow exactly the descriptions as contained in Pulitzer's will, that they... be awarded annually, that the awarding agent... be the Trustees of the University, and that the Trustees... be guided in their decisions by nominations from several committees."32 "With the adoption of that resolution," Hohenberg writes, "the Board got down to the main business of drafting a working plan for the Pulitzer Prizes. Here, too, Butler was well prepared. He presented a Plan of Award,... which for the first

27 Ibid., pp. 108 f. 28 Cf. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes. A History of the Awards in Books, Drama, Music, and Journalism. Based on the Private Files over Six Decades, New York - London 1974, p. 9. 29 Cf. Alleyne Irleland, Joseph Pulitzer. Reminiscences of a Secretary, New York 1914; W. A. Swanberg, Pulitzer, New York 1967. 30 Cf. Don C. Seitz, Joseph Pulitzer, op. cit., p. 461. 31 Richard T. Baker, A History of the Graduate School of Journalism, op. cit., pp. 81 f.

32 Ibid., p. 87.

8 DOUBLEDAY, DORAN AND COMPANY,

GARDES cmr, *. γ.

March 29th, 19U.

?tau* addns» rtpty to iVeto Vor* O/JJce.· 14 WIR 49« sr, «OCRFBLUX. CENTtX, SHEW YOU., V. Y.

Dear Dr. Fackenthal; Mrs. Colum, Glenway Ifescott and I have met today to discuss the season's plays and I am afraid that we have not been able to reach a unanimous decision. »Irs. Colum and Glenway will write to you themselves. My opinion is that the best play that has been produced is John Van Druten's "The Voice of the Turtle." It is not a great play, which it does not pretend to be, but a light comedy and a distinguished one. It deals truthfully with a phase of life in this country at the moment. The dialogue is easy and natural. It is consistently amusing. As a piece of playwriting, a matter on which I venture to claim some expoert knowledge, it has real technical excellence. John Van Druten applied for his first papers on April 30th, 19A2, and is applying for final papers on April 30th, 19ΛΛ, which I understand is the earliest date on which he can legally do so. I think it is for your Committee to judge whether the fact that he is not yet an American citizen makes him ineligible for the Pulitzer Prize. The only other plays which are worth considering for this are Moss Hart's "Winged Victory" and Edward Chodorov's "Decision." "TTinged Victory" is described by the author as a spectacle. The first act has some educational value, it is varied and interesting and gives the spectator some idea of what the training of an airman is like. The second act is weak and sentimental. It does leap well what Maxwell Anderson a season ago did rather badly in the "Eve of St. Hark." "Decision" deals with a serious subject, that of race prejudice/»» it has one or two dramatic moments. But it is very badly put together, the comic relief is dragged in without rhyme or reason, and it is so inconclusive that when the final curtain fell, I, a dramatist of some experience, had no idea that the play was finished. It is in fact a very poor piece of work. My conclusion is that if the Committee is of opinion that it cannot give the prize to "The Voice of the Turle" it would be better to pass it over altogether. No other play that I have seen deserves it. lours sincerely, Dr. F. D- Fackenthal, Provost Office, Columbia university, 116th Street & Broadway, Mew York, N.T.

W. Somerset Maugham.

Sample of a Drama Jury Report, signed by W. Somerset Maugham

time set forth the relationship between the Advisory Board and the Trustees of Columbia University."33 Finally, the time had come to realize Joseph Pulitzer's dream. The intention of the founder of the prizes was quite obvious. While he requested the university's trustees to bestow the awards, he rested in the Advisory Board the principal authority for recommendations to the trustees. In his will he creeded, "that the Advisory Board shall be continued in existence without limitation of time" and "that the selection of the persons who shall receive said prizes... shall be under its control as long as it continues in existence."34 Pulitzer gave the Board the power to withhold prizes in any category if it found competitors below the standard of excellence fixed by the Board, and he also made this statement in addition: "The Advisory Board shall have the power in its discretion to suspend or to change any subject or subjects; substituting, however, others in their places, if in the judgment of the Board such suspension, changes or substitutions shall be conducive to the public good or rendered advisable by public necessities, or by reason of change of time."35 The Plan of Award defined the limited powers of the trustees and suggested the jury system without which the Pulitzer Prizes could not have functioned as their donor intended. But the Advisory Board took no formal notice of the jury system at the outset and even insisted on special provisions in the Plan of Award. "This was the first signal," John Hohenberg concludes, "that the Board would regard all jury reports as advisory, that the Board would insist on its right to overrule juries and impose its own judgment on the contenders, and that the Board would, if necessary, select its own prize winners... Otherwise, the Plan of Award contained no surprises. It included all the prizes proposed in the Pulitzer will... When the Board adjourned at 5:40 p.m. on May 24, 1915, the course to be followed by the Pulitzer Prizes in its formative years was set for all practical purposes. Its members did not meet the following year, there being no business to warrant a formal session... In order to keep the Board fully posted, Butler circulated a letter to all members with notification that the first deadline for all nominations and exhibits would be February 1, 1917, and that the first Pulitzer Prizes would be announced at the Columbia Commencement in June 1917. "-^ The administration and process for awarding the prizes were fairly settled, then, although the time was one of political crisis. "Thus, Pulitzer's dream materialized six years after his death and thus the Pulitzer Prizes, a frail craft of many masters, was launched directly into the tempest of World War I," John Hohenberg states.37 Since, in May, 1915, "the calendar year... was already nearly half spent..., no steps were taken to begin the screening of newspapers and books until 1916."38 Despite the political climate - on April 6, the U.S.A. had declared war on Germany - on May 24, 1917, "without festivities or fanfare, four dignified, elderly gentlemen came to the Columbia campus... to vote for the first Pulitzer Prizes."3^ "Under such circumstances," Hohenberg continues in his description, "very little detachment was possible in studying the various jury reports recommending Pulitzer Prizes to the Advisory Board."40 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 22. Quoted from John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prize Story, New York - London 1959, p. 330. Ibid. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 23 f. Ibid.,p.24. Richard T. Baker, A History of the Graduate School of Journalism, op. cit., p. 89. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 28. Ibid., p. 29.

10

The Advisory Board had received proposals from jury members from different prize categories, but "there was a great deal of reluctance on the part of most jurors to submit recommendations to the Board for the first awards in 1917; those who did, with a few exceptions, proposed prizes that amply reflected the patriotic tenor of the times."41 The journalism juries consisted of members of the School of Journalism, and the American Academy of Arts and Letters had recruited the first juries in the non-journalism categories. The correspondence of the various letters juries indicated that there were few important works to be judged in any of the categories. So they passed the first fiction and drama awards. But also the journalism juries could not find a newspaper that would earn the Meritorious Public Service Award. This means that in their first year, Pulitzer Prizes only were given in the following four award categories: "Reporting," "Editorial Writing," "History," and "Biography or Autobiography." The Advisory Board had quietly voted the recommendations of all the juries, and also the university trustees had no objections so that the first prizes could be awarded at the Columbia Commencement of June 6,1917.42 In the course of the years, several changes in the Plan of Award as well as in the prize administration occured. New award categories were established, others were renamed or divided so that new award groups were established.4·* Those circumstances required that the prize administration more and more had to be professionalized. While during the early decades of the Pulitzer Prizes the Dean of the School of Journalism functioned as some kind of a secretary of the award system, in the mid-fifties a special administrator of the prizes was installed. Several years before, the Board had changed its name from the Advisory Board of the Graduate School of Journalism to the Advisory Board of the Pulitzer Prizes.44 In the late seventies, the Board again changed its name: from then on it has been called the Pulitzer Prize Board. While the original Board consisted of thirteen members, it later was expanded to more than twenty. Maximum service on this self-perpuating body is limited to three terms of three years each.4^ The Board was always deeply interested in developing representative juries. In the early years of the Pulitzer Prizes, jurors in the journalism award categories often consisted of the journalism faculty with the addition of distinguished outsiders from time to time, while jurors in the Letters award categories mainly came from outside Columbia University.46 Over the years, the number of jurors in all award categories climbed from two to five each. Only the photography jury has to work on two different groups. "The awards," as Seymour Topping put it, "are the culmination of a year-long process that begins early in the year with the appointment of 90 distinguished judges who serve on twenty separate juries and are asked to make three nominations in each of the 21 categories... The juries of five persons each, working intensively for three days, examine every entry before making their nominations."47 Every juror who has an interest in a discussed entry does not take part in the deliberations and leaves the room. The final part of the annual Pulitzer Prize competition is enacted in early April when the Board assembles in the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. In prior weeks the board members had read the texts of the journalism entries and the nominated books, 41 42 43 44 45

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30. Ibid., pp. 30 ff. Cf. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes 1917-1991, New York 1991. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 229 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prize Story II. Award-Winning News Stories, Columns, Editorials, Cartoons, and News Pictures, 1959-1980, New York 1980, p. 6. 46 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 172. 47 Seymour Topping, Joseph Pulitzer and the Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. X.

11

THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK TO ALL PERSONS TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS MAY COME GREETING BE IT KNOWN THAT

ERNEST HEMINGWAY HAS BEEN AWARDED

THE PULITZER PRIZE IN LETTERS FOR "THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA" FOR DISTINGUISHED FICTION PUBLISHED IN BOOK FORM DURING THE YEAR BY AN AMERICAN AUTHOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY GOVERNING SUCH AWARD IN WITNESS WHEREOF WE HAVE CAUSED THIS CERTIFICATE TO BE SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY AND OUR CORPORATE SEAL TO BE HERETO AFFIXED IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ON THE

FOURTH

DAY OF

MAY

IN THE YEAR OF

OUR LORD ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-THREE

IDENT

Sample of a Pulitzer Prize Certificate listened to music cassettes and read the scripts of nominated plays. "Board discussions," Seymour Topping writes, "are animated and often hotly debated. Work done by individuals tends to be favored. In journalism, if more than three individuals are cited in an entry, any prize goes to the newspaper" rather to any person. Awards are usually made by majority vote, but the Board is also empowered to vote 'no award,' or by three-fourth vote to select an entry that has not been nominated or to switch nominations among the categories. Both the jury nominations and the awards voted by the Board are held in strict confidence until the announcement of the prizes.48 About a week after the Board meeting, during April, the formal announcement of the prizes takes place. "Towards three o'clock p.m. (Eastern Time) of the day of the announcement," Topping states, "in hundreds of newsrooms across the United States, journalists gather about news agency tickers to wait for the bulletins that bring explosions of joy and celebrations to some and disappointment to others."49 The awards are announced by the president of Columbia University on the recommendation of the Pulitzer Prize Board. The announcement includes the name of the winner(s) in each category as well as

48 lbid.,p.Xlll. 49 Ibid.

12 the names of other finalists.50 Unlike the annual presentation of the Nobel Prizes in Scandinavia, Pulitzer Prize-winners receive their awards - a certificate and a check from the president of Columbia University at a luncheon in May of every year in presence of family members, professional associates, Board members, and the faculty of the Graduate School of Journalism. The Board declined offers to transform the occasion into a television extravaganza.51

50 Ibid. 51 Ibid., p. XIV.

13

2.

PRIZES FOR VARIOUS PRESS-RELATED FIELDS

While most of the Pulitzer Prizes intend to honor outstanding achievements by individual people or teams, the original plan of awards also contained three prizes of a different nature. They were established for "Meritorious Public Service" by a newspaper, for "Newspaper History" and for "School of Journalism Development" at Columbia University. All three awards started in 1917, but only one is still in existence.

2.1

Meritorious Public Service Award

The original definition of this award category was as follows: "For the most disinterested and meritorious public service rendered by any American newspaper during the year."1 The first jury, composed of members of the Columbia School of Journalism, started its judging in the spring of 1917. The report does not indicate how many and which newspapers applied for the award. Finally, the jury could not suggest any American newspaper worthy of the prize,2 and so the Advisory Board decided to give "no award" in this category.3 Since the 1918 jury report in this award category is missing, it is not possible to tell anything about the competitors.^ But the result of the jury's selection process is known: The prize went to the New York Times "for its public service in publishing in full so many official reports, documents and speeches by European statesmen relating to the progress and conduct of the war."^ This time and in several of the following years mainly members of the teaching staff of the School of Journalism at Columbia University served as jurors. In 1919 the jury suggested to the Advisory Board that the prize "be awarded to the Milwaukee Journal for its strong and courageous campaign for Americanism in a constituency where foreign elements made such a policy hazardous from a business point of view. We are at present making investigations to confirm or disprove our present impression as to the risk and effectiveness of this service, pending the result of which we do not feel able to make a positive recommendation. We merely transmit the suggestion for consideration and will forward later such information as we may be able to obtain bearing on the subject."6 The Advisory Board accepted the recommendation of the jury and gave the award to the Milwaukee Journal? The jurors of 1920 regretted "that only one application was made for this prize."8 Nevertheless they made the suggestion "that the gold medal for the most disinterested and meritorious public service rendered by any American newspaper during the year be awarded to the Minneapolis Daily News for its Americanization campaign. We respect1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

De Forest O'Dell, The History of Journalism Education in the United States, New York 1935, p. 108. Public Service Jury Report, April 28, 1917, p. 2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes 1917-1991, New York 1991, p. 3. Information from the Pulitzer Prize Office, New York, April 1999. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 3. Public Service Jury Report, May 12, 1919, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 3. Public Service Jury Report, April 26, 1920, p. 1.

14 fully suggest," the jurors told the President of Columbia University, "that documents in connection with this (report) be submitted to the Advisory Board for consideration."9 But the Advisory Board did not find it suitable to give the Pulitzer Prize to the only applicant in this category, so the result was "no award."10 Two finalists were picked out by the jury of 1921, "either of which in its judgment would merit the awarding of the prize," the report reads and continues: "There is the work of the Boston Post in the pricking of the Ponzi financial bubble, in investigating his claims to be operating in foreign exchange and throwing doubt on him at a time when the public officials were inactive and other newspapers were either ignoring him or treating him as a genuine financial wizard... The other public service was that rendered by the New York Evening Post in its campaign to bring to attention the shortcomings of the government work for the relief and rehabilitation of the soldiers of the World War."11 The Advisory Board declared the Boston Post winner.12 In 1922 the jurors only had one clear favorite for the award, the New York World. This paper was to get the Pulitzer Prize "for articles exposing the operations of Ku Klux Klan, published during September and October" of the year before.13 Hohenberg adds that the executive editor of the New York World "exposed the Ku Klux Klan by publishing original documents that had been taken from its files and other secret materials."14 The Advisory Board members were impressed and decided that the Pulitzer Prize should go to the New York World.15 Five newspapers can be found on the jury report of 1923, namely: 1. Boston Post, 2. Brooklyn Standard Union, 3. Christian Science Monitor, 4. Baltimore Sun, 5. Memphis Commercial Appeal. "The jury felt unable," the report reads, to recommend number one or three "because the service rendered by the particular newspaper mentioned does not appear to be greater than that rendered by others dealing with the same issue." The newspapers No. 2 and 5, the jurors added, had not sent in articles from the previous year and therefore should be inelegible. No. 4, the Baltimore Sun, was the jury's favorite "for its work done during the Washington Conference on the Limitation of Armaments."^ The Advisory Board did not accept this proposal and gave the award to the Memphis Commercial Appeal "for its courageous attitude in the publication of cartoons and the handling of news in reference to the operations of the Ku Klux Klan."17 In 1924 the jurors had two newspapers on their shortlist. One of them, the Fort Worth Press from Texas, was the clear favorite "for exposing and assisting in the conviction of the promoters of fraudulent oil companies." On the other hand there was an exhibit by the New York World, "exposing the peonage system in the prison camps of some of the southern states as a disinterested and meritorious public service worthy of recognition."18 The Advisory Board decided in favor of the second choice of the jury's list so that the Pulitzer Prize came to the New York World "for its work in connection with the exposure of the Florida peonage evil."19 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Public Service Jury Report, May 10,1920, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 3. Public Service Jury Report, April 8,1921, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 3. Public Service Jury Report, April 18, 1922, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, New York - London 1974, p. 40. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 3. Public Service Jury Report, April 13,1923, p. I. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 3. Public Service Jury Report, March 19, 1924, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 3.

15 The jurors of 1925 did not nominate a favorite. Instead, they put the following twelve newspapers on their list: (1) The Chicago Daily News; (2) the Grand Rapids Press; (3) the Los Angeles Times; (4) the Cambridge Tribune; (5) the Camden Daily Courier; (6) the Christian Science Monitor, (7) the Cincinnati Post; (8) the Kentucky Post; (9) the Livingston Enterprise; (10) the Courier Journal; (11) the News and Observer; (12) the White Plains Daily Reporter. The jury, the report says, was "unanimous of the opinion that with the exception of the items marked (1), (2) and (3), the matter submitted does not reach a standard justifying the award of the prize." One jury member even was "of the opinion that all the matter submitted is so ordinary that he favors not awarding the prize this year."20 The Advisory Board followed this suggestion and gave "no award" in this prize category.21 Seventeen different newspapers participated in the competition in 1926. The jury in its report desired "to express its appreciation of the interest thereby shown and the general excellence of the services represented. It is the unanimous opinion of the jury," the report continues, "that the award... should be made to the Enquirer Sun of Columbus, Georgia" which was "in a class by itself. This service consisted of a brave and energetic fight carried on by a vigorous and fearless editorial policy against the Ku Klux Klan; against the enactment of the law barring the teaching of evolution; against dishonest and incompetent public officials; for justice to the negro and against lynching. These campaigns were carried on without regard to personal safety or loss of circulation, and have been a stimulus to the improvement of the social and political life in the South."22 These merits impressed the Advisory Board so that the Enquirer Sun won the award.23 In 1927 the Meritorious Public Service jury again had a clear favorite. "We beg to report our unanimous recommendation," they wrote to the Advisory Board, "that the Pulitzer Prize... be awarded to the Canton Daily News of Canton, Ohio, for its brave, patriotic and effective fight for the purification of municipal politics and for the ending of a vicious state of affairs brought about by collusion between city authorities and the criminal element, a fight which had a tragic result in the assassination of the editor of the paper... We feel that this campaign was more than local in its significance and that the results will be widely felt in other communities, increasing the effectiveness of the press in dealing with similar conditions elsewhere."24 For the Advisory Board it was no question that the Canton Daily News should earn the award.25 The jury of 1928 was "unanimously of the opinion that the three outstanding examples" were: "(1) the campaign of the Minneapolis Tribune to improve the agricultural situation in the Northwest by a program of education calculated to expose certain prevalent economic fallacies and to spread a knowledge of improved methods of cultivation and marketing; (2) that (exhibit) of the Indianapolis Times to expose political corruption in Indiana, prosecute the guilty, and bring about a more wholesome state of affairs in civil government; (3) that (entry) of the New York Evening World to correct the abuses of the municipal courts, to combat the evil of shyster lawyers, bail bond extortioners, and 'fences,' and in general to improve the conditions of the administration of justice as it concerns the poor. In the opinion of the jury," the report says, "the work of the Minne20 21 22 23 24 25

Public Service Jury Report, March 13, 1925, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 3. Public Service Jury Report, March 13, 1926, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 3. Public Service Jury Report, March 15, 1927, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 3.

16

apolis Tribune best deserves the award."26 The Advisory Board picked the Indianapolis Times as the winner.27 There were twenty-one nominations for the award in 1929. The jury unanimously recommended that the prize "be awarded to the Evening World of New York for the effective campaign carried on to correct evils in the administration of justice including the fight to curb 'ambulance-chasers,' support of the 'fence' bill, and measures to simplify procedure, prevent perjury, and eliminate politics from municipal courts; a campaign which has been instrumental in securing remedial action. The jury notes among nominations deserving commendation that of the St. Paul (Minnesota) Dispatch and Pioneer Press for its campaign for conservation of forests; and of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, for its campaign against 'ambulance-chasers' which ably supplemented the work of the New York Evening World."^ The Pulitzer Prize was bestowed upon the New York Evening World.29 "After considering the nineteen separate items of material submitted for the prize" in 1930, the jury stated in its report, they wished "to recommend unanimously as... most worthy of the award the Portland Evening News for its successful campaign against the exportation of hydro-electric power from the State of Maine. The evidence submitted indicates that the News was the only paper in the entire State of Maine that fought persistently and consistently against the granting of privileges which where afterwards declared by a considerable majority of the electors of the State to be detrimental to its interests. The News, therefore, showed unusual courage and independence." The jury also had the three following newspapers on the short-list: Brooklyn Daily Eagle, the Detroit News and the Cleveland Fresst The Advisory Board did not accept any of the four papers and gave "no award" in this category.31 In 1931 the jurors informed the Board that "after careful examination of some twentyfive items" they recommended "the following two papers in the order stated: 1. Louisville (Ky.) Times for the preservation of Cumberland Falls and the purchase of the surrounding tract for a state park; 2. Atlanta (Ga.) Constitution for a successful municipal graft exposure and consequent convictions." The report continues that "the jury could not find that in any other case one newspaper was as clearly entitled to the main credit as in the case of the Atlanta Constitution."^ This opinion was shared by the Advisory Board, and the Atlanta Constitution won the prize.33 A clear favorite for the jurors of 1932 was the Indianapolis News. The paper had "launched a campaign to eliminate waste in city management and to reduce the tax levy. The news and editorial departments were mobilized for a period of approximately eighteen months and exhaustive studies were made throughout the state. As a result of a carefully coordinated effort, ably directed, eighty-six counties in Indiana made reductions in their budgets. The Indianapolis News," the jury report continues, "has submitted a convincing display of news and editorial articles. On the basis of the material formally submitted to the jury by all of the candidates for the prize this newspaper ranks first in 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Public Service Jury Report, undated (March 1928), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 3. Public Service Jury Report, March 6, 1929, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 4. Public Service Jury Report, March 10, 1930, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit, p. 4. Public Service Jury Report, March 9, 1931, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 4.

17

the opinion of the committee."34 Although exhibits by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the New York World-Telegram also were on the short-list, the Advisory Board declared the Indianapolis News winner.3^ The jury of 1933, which considered materials submitted by thirty-eight newspapers, could not reach an agreement with regard to the award favorite. Its majority voted in favor of the New York World-Telegram for "its wisely planned and judiciously conducted series of articles on veterans' relief, on the real estate bond evil... and the articles exposing the lottery schemes of various fraternal organizations." As a second choice the jury majority recommended the Detroit Free Press for "its series of articles under the title 'War on Waste: Save the People's money.'" The jury minority placed as second choice the Philadelphia Record "for defeating the attempt of the Philadelphia city government to lay an income tax on wages, which movement, if successful, would have been a precedent and incentive to every other gang running every other city."36 The Advisory Board followed the suggestion of the jury majority for first place so that the New York World-Telegram earned the award.37 Twenty-four exhibits were nominated in 1934 for the Meritorious Public Service category. "In the opinion of the jury," the report reads, the award should not go to a single newspaper, but to the American press as a whole "in safe-guarding the freedom of the press in a national emergency. The jury recommends that the award be made to the Newspaper Publishers of the nation as represented by the American Newspapers Publishers' Association..., with special recognition of the services of... the New York HeraldTribune..., the Richmond (Virginia) News-Leader and... of the Fort Worth (Texas) StarTelegram."^ The Advisory Board did not follow this suggestion but gave the award to the Medford (Or.) Mail Tribune "for its campaign against unscrupulous politicians in Jackson County, Oregon."39 In 1935 the jurors selected the following five exhibits and placed them on their shortlist: 1. the Memphis Commercial Appeal for a "Plant to Prosper" campaign; 2. the Christian Science Monitor for a series of articles and recommendations on "Preventing Causes of Crime;" 3. the Sheboygan (Wisconsin) Press for its "Investigation of State Hospitals;" 4. the Washington (D.C.) Herald for its campaign to "Build a new Tuberculosis Hospital," 5. the Phoenix (Arizona) Republic and Gazette for its "Friendly Survey of Arizona."4^ This year, again, the Advisory Board did not pick a winner out of the list but gave the Pulitzer Prize to the Sacramento (Ca.) Bee "for its campaign against political machine influence in the appointment of two Federal judges in Nevada."41 Obviously this entry had been transferred from the Reporting category to the Meritorious Public Service award group.42 There were seventeen exhibits in the award category in 1936, eight of which went on the jury's shortlist: the St. Paul Daily News for "a campaign against police corruption and crime conditions in St. Paul;" the Cedar Rapids Gazette "for a crusade against corruption in Iowa liquor control and other political irregularities;" the Louisville Courier-Journal 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Public Service Jury Report, March 22, 1932, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 4. Public Service Jury Report, March 13, 1933, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 4. Public Service Jury Report, March 6, 1934, pp. 4 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 4. Public Service Jury Report, March 30,1935, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 4. Cf. Reporting Jury Report, March 30, 1935, p. 2.

18 for "its campaign to put out of power a bi-partisan machine which controlled Kentucky for twenty years;" the New York World-Telegram for "its campaign to force the district attorneys of New York and King's Counties to be superseded;" the Trenton Times for "a long campaign against graft in the police department and among municipal office holders;" the Standard Times for a campaign "to remedy injustices... against New England industry and workers;" the Commercial Appeal for "a campaign... to encourage planned farming;" the Hartford Times for a campaign "to reduce automobile accidents."43 The winner was the Cedar Rapids Gazetted The jury of 1937 nominated five finalists in the Meritorious Public Service category. First mentioned was the St. Louis Post-Dispatch with a very successful "news, editorial and cartoon campaign." The Providence Journal and Bulletin came on second place "for a research study of direct and indirect taxes based upon one year's detailed expenditures of three families of working people." The Atlanta Journal was third "for its campaign by news and editorials and radio, to end corruption and inefficiency in the police department." The Memphis Commercial Appeal was placed fourth for its "campaign against the loan-shark menace to the community." Fifth rank went to the Cleveland Press "for its investigation and expose... of a cemetary racket."45 The Pulitzer Prize went to the Si. Louis Post-Dispatch "for its exposure of wholesale fraudulent registration in St. Louis."46 In 1938 the jurors saw two newspapers "tied for first place, because both campaigns deal with extremely important matters and because both newspapers used great versatility and tenaciousness over a long period of time." They nominated: the Bismarck (N.D.) Tribune "for its efforts to teach its 8.000.000 dust-bowl farmers to help themselves." Equal merits were attributed to the San Francisco News "for its fight on vice and police graft because the safety and happiness of citizens depends too often on efficient city government." Second place went to the Atlanta Constitution "for improving county government," and third ranked the Philadelphia Record "for exposing conditions in that city's criminal courts."47 The Advisory Board chose the Bismarck Tribune "for its news reports and editorials entitled 'Self Help in the Dust Bowl.' "48 There were three finalists on the jury's shortlist of 1939. A "voluminous exhibit of articles and cartoons" by the Miami Daily News was mentioned first. In its entry the newspaper had "pointed serious defects" in the city charter and had "caused a bar committee to set about to have them remedied at the approaching legislative session." The newspaper also had taught Miami's "citizens that venal office-holders cannot foist themselves upon an objecting constituency for the complete duration of their term." Second on the jury's list was the New York World-Telegram for a "series of news articles, editorials and cartoons... to reform the abuses in industrial insurance in the State of New York." The Waterbury Republican and American from Connecticut was mentioned third "for exposure of municipal graft."49 The winner of the Pulitzer Prize was the Miami Daily News "for its campaign for the recall of the Miami City Commission."50 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Public Service Jury Report, undated (March 1936), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 4. Public Service Jury Report, undated (May 1937), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 4. Public Service Jury Report, April 12, 1938, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 4. Public Service Jury Report, undated (April 1939), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 4.

19 The Waterbury Republican and American, which had been only third choice in the previous year, was the only candidate for the award in 1940. Since the late twenties, the jury report stated, the newspaper had "charged graft, extravagance, and misleading financial reports, but could not get access to all necessary records until last year." By that time a Grand Jury had charged: "The city has been defrauded of millions of dollars by a group who have combined together for their own financial and political advancement... Corruption and mismanagement were the rule rather than the exception." The paper had reported daily about the "smear campaign" and it was the leading voice in the city to uncover the scandal.51 On the basis of these merits the Waterbury Republican and American won the award "for its campaign exposing municipal graft."52 The jury of 1941 put three finalists on the shortlist: 1. The New York World-Telegram for articles "on scandals in the ranks of organized labor." 2. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch "for its successful campaign against the city smoke nuisance and for its fight against a comtempt of court decision." The smoke campaign, the jury report says, covered "a high type of modern newspaper crusade. The evidence reveals that the campaign was carefully thought out and prepared. The Post-Dispatch, moreover, was not content merely to point out the evils of the city smoke nuisance, but from the beginning suggested a possible remedy." 3. The New York Times was praised "for its comprehensive coverage of news of the war and world events... In view of the present world situation, with accurate information more and more difficult to obtain the... daily news coverage as that of the New York Times becomes an outstanding public service."5^ The Advisory Board declared the Si. Louis Post-Dispatch winner.54 After examining the nominations of twenty-seven newspapers in 1942, the jury split the favorites into two groups, (1) of national and (2) of community significance. "In the first category," the jury report states, the leading nominations were "those of the Los Angeles Times, the New York Herald-Tribune, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin and the Washington Post." In the second group the jurors favored the Portsmouth (N.H.) Herald and the San Bernardino Sun. "All of these newspapers merit consideration for the first prize," the jury added and told the Advisory Board that the Los Angeles Times probably would fit into both groups.55 So thought the board members: they gave the Pulitzer Prize to the Los Angeles Times "for its successful campaign which resulted in the clarification and confirmation for all American newspapers of the right of free press as guaranteed under the Constitution."5^ In 1943, according to the jury, the outstanding example of individual newspaper public service was the Omaha World-Herald. "This newspaper," the jurors stated, "was the pioneer in the big national campaign of the press to collect scrap for war industries... The press of our country responded to this invitation to war service by adopting the Nebraska Plan and applying it instantaneously and effectively in every community where newspapers are published." Next on the jury's list was the Dallas News for winning a "decision by the United States Supreme Court which clarified for the press and for business a critical issue..." The Daily Oklahoman as well as the Philadelphia Inquirer were

51 52 53 54 55 56

Public Service Jury Report, undated (April 1940), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 4. Public Service Jury Report, April 3, 1941, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 4. Public Service Jury Report, March 25, 1942, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 4 f.

20 also mentioned in the jury report for their merits.57 The Pulitzer Prize was bestowed to the Omaha World-Herald "for its initiative and originality in planning a state-wide campaign for the collection of scrap metal for the war effort."58 The Minneapolis Star-Journal and Tribune was first on the jury's list in 1944 "for its campaign to increase food production and to decrease food consumption, to win the war." Second place went to the Milwaukee Journal "for its campaign for the proper care and rehabilitation of returning war veterans." The Mobile Press Register was third "for its successful fight against a charge of contempt of court..." Fourth place was earned by the Miami Daily News "for its fight for freedom of conscience and religion." The Chicago Times was put on rank five for a number of editorials.59 This time the Advisory Board did not select any of these newspapers. Instead the award was given to the New York Times "for its survey of the teaching of American History."60 Three newspapers can be found on the jury's list of 1945: 1. The Detroit Free Press which had "submitted a handsome scrapbook of clippings describing the work of a oneman grand jury... in investigating legislative graft and corruption... The Free Press, through its editorials and its backing of its reporter.... kept the grand jury investigation alive in the face of political opposition." 2. The San Francisco Call-Bulletin was praised for a brief campaign "to encourage blood donations. It grew out of a plan by the U.S. Navy to send whole human blood from San Francisco to the Pacific fighting front in planes." 3. The Atlanta Journal had reported about "an outbreak by twenty-five inmates of the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary."61 The Advisory Board chose the Detroit Free Press as the winner "for its investigation of legislative graft and corruption at Lansing, Michigan."62 When the jurors in 1946 had made a selection from forty-one exhibits in this award category, they put two newspapers onto their shortlist. The first one was the Richmond News-Leader. This paper had published numerous articles on a situation when the "City of Richmond was facing bankruptcy... The articles were published in the News-Leader, which paid for the investigation." Second on the jury's list was the Toledo Blade. The newspaper had commissioned a "staff of consultants to build a large scale model, 60 feet in diameter, showing the Toledo metropolitan area of 150 square miles. This plan and model was designed to show the sort of civic transformation that could be achieved by the subsequent pursuit of a masterplan or program of building."63 The Advisory Board gave the award to the Scranton Times "for its fifteen-year investigation of judicial practices in the United States District Court for the middle district of Pennsylvania, resulting in removal of the District Judge and indictment of many others."64 Since the jury reports of the three following years are missing, it is only possible to tell which newspapers won the Pulitzer Prize. In 1947 it was the Baltimore Sun "for its series of articles... dealing with the administration of unemployment compensation in Maryland, resulting in convictions and pleas of guilty in criminal court of 93 persons."65 The 1948 award went to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch "for the coverage of the Centralia, 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Public Service Jury Report, March 15, 1943, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 5. Public Service Jury Report, undated (March 1944), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 5. Public Service Jury Report, March 16, 1945, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 5. Public Service Jury Report, April 1,1946, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 5.

65 Ibid.

21

Illinois, mine disaster and the follow-up which resulted in impressive reforms in mine safety laws and regulations."66 The 1949 prize was bestowed to the Nebraska State Journal "for the campaign establishing the 'Nebraska All-Star Primary' presidential preference primary which spotlighted, through a bi-partisan committee, issues early in the presidential campaign."67 In 1950 the jury had to select from seventy exhibits, and six entries went onto the shortlist. The jurors' favorite was a "joint entry of the Chicago Daily News and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for the expose of Illinois editors on the payroll" of the state governor. The Yakima (Wash.) Morning Herald was next for "a series analyzing relief waste in Yakima specifically and the state of Washington generally." The Providence Journal and Evening Bulletin followed on the jury's list, dealing with several topics from New England. Tax abuses were the theme of the Daily Oklahoman and Times, ranking fourth. The Jackson Citizen Patriot, ranking fifth, had "campaigned to make Memorial Day a day of prayer for peace rather than a day of picnics and traffic jams." Finally, the MacComb Enterprise-Journal was placed on the jury's list for "a bewildering series of community projects ranging from the campaign to move the city dump to the Valentine Day party."6f* Winners were the Chicago Daily News and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for "exposing the presence of 37 Illinois newspapermen on an Illinois State payroll."6^ The jury of 1951 nominated six finalists in alphabetical order by newspaper titles. The Atlanta Journal was mentioned first for "news articles, editorials, photos of its fight for better schools." The Brooklyn Eagle followed for a "series on the gambling rackets in Brooklyn and their tie-in with the police." The Jacksonville Journal was next, dealing with "financial practices in the spending of school funds." Fourth on the jury's list was the Miami Herald, based on a "crime campaign for the year, fighting, gambling crime and political corruption." The St. Louis Post-Dispatch was represented on the shortlist with a collected edition of the series: "Progress or Decay? St. Louis Must Choose." Last on the list was the Washington Post with an editorial "The Road Back to America" introducing a "series of articles on national security."70 The Pulitzer Prize was bestowed upon the Miami Herald and the Brooklyn Eagle "for their crime reporting during the year" before.7^ In 1952 the jury report in the Meritorious Public Service category is missing. Winner was the St. Louis Post-Dispatch "for its investigation and disclosures of widespread corruption in the Internal Revenue Bureau and other departments of the government."72 It was already the fifth award of this type for the newspaper once purchased by Joseph Pulitzer. "One entry in the category for disinterested and meritorious public service seems clearly outstanding," the jurors of 1953 stated at the beginning of their report and continued: "It is the joint entry of the Tabor City (N.C.) Tribune and the Whiteville (N.C.) News Reporter. These two small country newspapers responded to a challenge, the lawless activity of the Ku Klux Klan in their communities, villages in rather wild countryside. They met this challenge, without prospect of gain and with grave risk of 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

Ibid. Ibid. Public Service Jury Report, undated (March 1950), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 5. Public Service Jury Report, March 20,1951, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 5. Ibid.

22 personal injury, by fearless, methodical reporting and repeated editorial attacks upon the Klan." On the jury's list also appeared entries from the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Brooklyn Eagle and the Washington Post^ But for the Advisory Board it was clear that the Whiteville News Reporter and the Tabor City Tribune earned the award "for their successful campaign against the Ku Klux Klan..., culminating in the conviction of over one hundred Klansmen and an end to terrorism in their communities."74 The 1954 jury report is also missing. The award was bestowed upon Newsday of Garden City, Long Island, "for its expose of New York State's race track scandals and labor racketeering, which led to the extortion indictment, guilty plea and imprisonment of (a) New York labor racketeer."75 The jury in 1955 placed first on its list of finalists the Columbus Ledger and Sunday Ledger-Enquirer for "news coverage and editorial comment... in destroying a corrupt and racket-ridden city government." Next on the list was an entry by the Birmingham News for the "Phenix City, Alabama, anti-crime crusade." The Long Island Daily Press was third because it had been "alert to one community problem after another." The Miami Daily News followed next. Outstanding coverage by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch had "helped lead the way out of an era in which the press was so likely to be intimidated by charges of 'Labor baiting' that it was reluctant to examine closely the conduct of unions."7*' The Pulitzer Prize was given to the Columbus Ledger and Sunday LedgerEnquirer "for its complete news coverage and fearless editorial attack on widespread corruption in neighboring Phenix City, Ala., which were effective in destroying a corrupt and racket-ridden city government."77 In 1956 the jury had five finalists on its shortlist: 1. The Chicago American "for its discovery of important evidence in the fatal shooting of... a school teacher... by a Chicago policeman." 2. The Watsonville (Ca.) Register-Pajaronian "for its painstaking coverage of the administration of a district attorney." 3. The Baltimore Evening Sun "for its extensive exposure of irregularities in the Employment Security Board and the State Roads Commission." 4. The Providence Journal-Bulletin "for its discovery and vigorous presentation of vote frauds." 5. The Scranton (Pa.) Times "for a series of editorials which finally prodded the authorities into solving the dynamiting of a house being built with non-union labor."7** The Advisory Board decided in favor of the Watsonville RegisterPajaronian "for courageous exposure of corruption in public office, which led to the resignation of a district attorney and the conviction of one of his associates."79 The jurors in 1957 recommended the Oregonian and the Chicago Daily News. "This may be a departure from normal procedure," they wrote in their report, "but the jurors feel that these two newspapers have performed distinguished service to the nation of such extraordinary import that both merit this high honor. The Oregonian's expose of the vice and corruption that extended beyond the government into areas controlled by the Teamsters Union has national repercussions. The story was developed under most difficult conditions and at considerable risk of reprisals from powerful forces. The Chicago Daily News," the report continues, "uncovered the Hodge fraud that resulted in the resig73 74 75 76 77 78 79

Public Service Jury Report, March 10, 1953, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 5. Ibid., pp. 5 f. Public Service Jury Report, undated (March 1955), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 6. Public Service Jury Report, March 12, 1956, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 6.

23 nation and jail sentence of the State Auditor of Illinois. More than $ 2.500.000 of the people's money had been stolen and only a determined and courageous reporting team could have uncovered the scandal."80 The Advisory Board followed the suggestion only in part and made the Chicago Daily News Pulitzer Prize winner.81 In 1958, the jurors stated, two of the entries on their shortlist concerned "newspaper performance in reference to stories of spontaneous generation which the newspapers covered with distinction." The first paper was the Arkansas Gazette which presented an exhibit containing "news stories, cartoons and editorials covering the Little Rock Story." The other paper was the New York Journal-American with "its coverage of... to bring to an end a series of crimes that had disconcerted and alarmed an entire city." There were also three other exhibits with stories "which were really originated by and developed by the newspapers: (1) The Philadelphia Bulletin's campaign against "abuses in municipal courts..." (2) The Los Angeles Examiner with a series of "abuses in the oil leasing system..." (3) The Indianapolis Times broke a story of "land-bying irregularities."82 The award went to the Arkansas Gazette "for demonstrating the highest qualities of civic leadership, journalistic responsibility and moral courage in the face of great public tension during the school integration crisis," of the year before.83 The Meritorious Public Service jury of 1959 recommended the following three nominations in order of preference: 1. The Utica (N.Y.) Observer-Dispatch and Utica Daily Press "for a series of investigative articles and editorials waging a campaign against corruption, vice and gambling in that city. The work was performed despite political and other pressures, and led to civic reforms." 2. The Atlanta Constitution "for a series exposing embezzlements, irregularities in award of state contracts and other corruption. The series led to prosecution of public employees and dismissal of others." 3. The Nashville Tennessean "for comprehensive investigation of labor violence in Tennessee that led to impeachment of a judge and indictment of Teamsters Union officials for conspiracy to commit assault with intent to kill and for income tax evasion."84 For the Advisory Board it was no question that the Utica (N.Y.) Observer-Dispatch and the Utica Daily Press should earn the award.85 Five entries were on the shortlist in 1960: The Boulder City News "for support of a campaign for the self government of a federal 'ward' city." The Los Angeles Times was mentioned next "for a well-conceived, long-continued and thorough-going attack on narcotics traffic." The Chicago Sun-Times was third "for a continuous and unrelenting campaign to clean up abuses in the bail bond rackets of Chicago." Forth place came to the Long Island Newsday "for a well thought out and vigorously conducted campaign for charter changes and reform government carried to a successful conclusion." Last on the jury's list was the Atlanta Constitution "for a carefully conducted and medically sound effort to seduce reforms in the conduct of mental institutions."86 The Pulitzer Prize was bestowed upon the Los Angeles Twzes.87 In 1961 the Meritorious Public Service jury delivered a rather short report, listing four exhibits in alphabetical order with no indication of preference: 1. The Amarillo Globeso Public Service Jury Report, undated (March 1957), pp. 1 f. 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 6. Public Service Jury Report, March 10,1958, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 6. Public Service Jury Report, March 12, 1959, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 6. Public Service Jury Report, March 10, 1960, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 6.

24 Times; 2. the Atlanta Constitution; 3. Knight Newspapers; 4. the Peoria Journal Star.88 No additional information was given on the jury report with regard to the stories or merits of the four papers. The Advisory Board decided in favor of the Amarillo GlobeTimes from Texas and added that the Pulitzer Prize was bestowed upon that newspaper "for exposing a breakdown in local law enforcement with resultant punitive action that swept lax officials from their posts and brought about the election of a reform slate. The newspaper thus exerted its civic leadership in the finest tradition of journalism."89 The jurors in 1962 found themselves "unable to reach unanimous agreement on a recommendation of a single newspaper for the first-place award," the report states and then continues: "However, the jury unanimously agrees" that each of five finalists "has made an outstanding contribution to public service. Our recommendations, listed in alphabetical order but without rank, are: Atlanta Constitution for its coverage of school integration in Georgia; Louisville Courier-Journal for its investigative reporting, general news coverage and editorializing on the crime and vice conditions in Newport, Ky.; Panama City (Fla.) News-Herald for its campaign uncovering moonshining and bolita (lottery) operations in Panama City; Rocky Mountain News, Denver, for its news and editorial coverage of the Denver police scandals; San Gabriel Valley (Calif.) Tribune for its campaign against graft and corruption in the Irwindale, Calif., town government."90 The winner was the Panama City News-Herald.^ Again very short was the jury report of 1963. "The Public Service jury unanimously recommends the Chicago Daily News exhibit on the campaign for birth control for first place," the report reads and adds: "The Committee unanimously recommends as their second choice the Nashville Tennessean entry on the prosecution of six political figures for fraud. The Committee also calls to the attention of the Advisory Board the work done by the Jersey Journal, the Tampa Tribune and the Hartford Times in saving the lives of four Negroes, in two cases where judicial procedure was grossly abused and in the third case, where considerations of humanity had been seriously neglected. "9^ The members of the Advisory Board selected the exhibit of the Chicago Daily News "for calling public attention to the issue of providing birth control services in the public health programs in its area."93 "We nominate," the jurors in 1964 stated, "out of a strong group of eighty, four newspapers in our order of preference, for consideration in the Public Service category: 1. St. Petersburg Times, 2. Charlotte Observer, 3. Nashville Tennessean, 4. Louisville Times." The St. Petersburg Times had "conducted a campaign that forced reorganization of Florida's state road construction procedures." The Charlotte Observer had done "a fantastic amount of detailed work to expose vote frauds arising mostly out of absentee balloting." The Nashville Tennessean "also exposed an election fraud and got the culprits convicted." And the Louisville Times had "campaigned to improve conditions in a reformatory."94 The Pulitzer Prize was bestowed upon the St. Petersburg Times "for its aggressive investigation of the Florida Turnpike authority which disclosed widespread illegal acts and resulted in a major reorganization of the State's road construction program."95 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Public Service Jury Report, undated (March 1961), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 6 f. Public Service Jury Report, March 9, 1962, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 7. Public Service Jury Report, March 8, 1963, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 7. Public Service Jury Report, May 6,1964, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 7.

25 In 1965 the report of the five jurors was very short and said: "The jury in the Public Service category rather quickly narrowed the entries to three, and then divided on how to rate those three. The Hutchinson News is our No. one recommendation, with the Chicago Daily News a close second. The Detroit Free Press finished third. For the Advisory Board's guidance, our final jury vote was three firsts and one second for Hutchinson News, and two firsts and two seconds for Chicago Daily News."^ It was not mentioned on the report for which merits the three newspapers were selected, but the decision of the Advisory Board made clear that the Hutchinson News from Kansas won the Pulitzer Prize "for its courageous and constructive campaign... to bring about more equitable reapportionment of the Kansas Legislature, despite powerful opposition in its own community."97 A very detailed report came from the jurors in 1966. They recommended the following five entries and listed them in order of preference: First place went to the Nashville Tennessean "for its campaign against secrecy in the state government." The Morrilton Democrat from Arkansas was placed second "for its campaign... against entrenched political and economic power." Third was the Louisville Courier-Journal "for its campaign to reform Kentucky strip-mining practices and laws." The Boston Globe was ranked fourth "for its successful campaign to prevent the appointment of... (a) Federal District Judge in Massachusetts. This newspaper took on a necessary task in its own backyard despite formidable obstacles and opposition." Position five was reached by the Los Angeles Times "for its coverage of the Watts riots. Here was a superb example of a large newspaper using all its resources to perform the basic newspaper task of covering a local event that assumed world importance."98 The Advisory Board decided in favor of the fourth candidate so that the prize was bestowed upon the Boston Globed In 1967 the jury delivered a report containing the following six entries listed alphabetically by name of the paper: (1) the Boston Herald: a "series on Boston schools;" (2) the Louisville Courier-Journal: a "campaign against stripmining;" (3) the Miami Herald: a "campaign against organized crime;" (4) the Milwaukee Journal: a "series on water pollution in Wisconsin;" (5) the New York Times: a "series on the C.I.A.;" (6) the Washington Post: a "series on federal wire-tapping."100 The Advisory Board selected two award-winning newspapers: The Louisville Courier-Journal received the Pulitzer Prize "for its successful campaign to control the Kentucky strip mining industry, a notable advance in the national effort for the conservation of natural resources." The other winner was the Milwaukee Journal "for its successful campaign to stiffen the laws against water pollution in Wisconsin, a notable advance in the national effort for the conservation of natural resources."101 The jurors of 1968 also named six newspapers as finalists in their report, listed in order of preference: 1. Christian Science Monitor for "crises in the Courts;" 2. Washington Post for "coverage of race relations and efforts to improve such relationships;" 3. Anchorage Daily News for "a very compelling series on the Alaskan native;" 4. Riverside (Ca.) Press-Enterprise for a "campaign against fraud in the handling of estates of Agua Caliente Indians;" 5. Chicago Tribune for a "campaign against pollution in the Lake 96 97 98 99 100 101

Public Service Jury Report, undated (March 1965), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 7. Public Service Jury Report, undated (March 1966), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 7. Public Service Jury Report, undated (March 1967), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 7.

26 Michigan area;" 6. Arizona Republic for its "fight for open justice openly arrived at."102 This time the members of the Advisory Board decided in favor of the newspaper placed fourth, the Riverside Press-Enterprise from California. The award went to this paper "for its expose of corruption in the courts in connection with the handling of the property and estates of an Indian tribe in California, and its successful efforts to punish the culprits."103 Five newspapers can be found on the jury's list in 1969. There was a tie between the Los Angeles Times and Newsday of Long Island. "The jury felt," the report states, "that an edge, if any, should go to the Los Angeles Times. Both newspapers showed what large, well-financed and capably manned newsrooms can do when examples of public misfeasance and malfeasance in office are brought to their attention." Second recommendation was the Bristol Herald Courier from Virginia. "With fewer resources at its command than many larger newspapers enjoy," the report says, this paper did an excellent job to disclose "vote fraud scandals." Third place went to the Chicago Daily News which had "uncovered a tax scandal." The last and fourth paper mentioned on the jury report was the Clinton Herald from Iowa which had finished a ten-year campaign for a new jail in the community.104 The winner was the Los Angeles Times "for its expose of wrongdoing within the Los Angeles City Government Commissions, resulting in resignations or criminal convictions of certain members, as well as widespread reforms."105 In 1970 the shortlist of the jury recommended four newspapers: 1. Newsday for "exposure of secret land deals and zoning manipulations by public and political party office holders in its circulation area." 2. The Christian Science Monitor for a series about "children in trouble." 3. The Oakland Tribune for "coverage of environmental problems in the San Francisco Bay area." 4. The Detroit News for the coverage of a "Secret Witness" program.106 This time the Advisory Board accepted the jury's first choice. The Pulitzer Prize went to Newsday of Garden City, N.J., "for its three-year investigation and exposure of secret land deals in eastern Long Island, which led to a series of criminal convictions, discharges and resignations among public and political officeholders in the area."107 The jury in 1971, after considering seventy-eight entries, recommended that the prize should go to Newsday, the paper which had also won in the previous year. Newsday had presented six series of articles exposing "an amazing range of improper practices on Long Island." For second place there was a tie between the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the Winston-Salem Journal. The Cleveland paper had "presented a thoroughly researched account of an Ohio loan scandal" while the Winston-Salem Journal had "waged an extended campaign... against environmental destruction." The Dayton News was listed next for "a courageous crusade in a sensitive, controversial and important realm to break the segregated living patterns, both racial and economic, in its area." Finally, the Hackensack Record from New Jersey appeared on the shortlist for "a significant public service to the community."108 The winner was the Winston-Salem Journal and Sentinel "for coverage of environmental problems... of northwest North Carolina."109 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

Public Service Jury Report, undated (March 1968), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 7. Public Service Jury Report, undated (March 1969), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 7. Public Service Jury Report, March 6, 1970, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 1. Public Service Jury Report, March 5,1971, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 7.

27 For the jurors in 1972 it was no question that the Pulitzer Prize should be earned by the New York Times "for the remarkable journalistic feat which has come to be known as The Pentagon Papers." There were also five other entries listed for the following ranks, they were: the Boston Globe, the Pontiac Press, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Newsday and the Montgomery Advertiser. The New York Times, the jurors stated, "has well earned the top award for public service by the exceptional marshalling of its resources toward twin goals: first, to let the people know the workings of their government in matters of highest concern to all citizens and, second, to defend their right to know in the face of the most serious threat to press freedom during nominal peace times in this century."110 The Advisory Board "found itself in complete agreement on the major point at issue - that the Pentagon Papers should have been published. It therefore voted unanimously to recommend the award... to the New York Times."111 Although the Columbia Trustees called the publication "illegal acts,"112 they did not oppose the jury's as well as the board's suggestions, so that the award went to the New York Times.113 Another outstanding journalistic achievement was considered by two different juries in 1973: The Pulitzer Prize office "had received and catalogued two big blue folders of the Washington Post exhibits for Woodward and Bernstein as entries for a Pulitzer Prize in public service and local reporting."114 The Meritorious Public Service jury worked out the following list of six finalists in order of preference: (1) The Chicago Tribune "Expose of vote fraud in Chicago;" (2) the New York Times - "Investigation of municipal corruption;" (3) the Washington Post - "Investigation of the Watergate case;" (4) the Wilmington Evening Journal - "Investigation of narcotics in Delaware;" (5) the Chicago Sun-Times - "Series on environment: Troubled Waters;" (6) the Buffalo Courier-Express - "Investigation of malpractice in city affairs."115 When this list was forwarded to the Advisory Board, the board's secretary raised the question why the Washington Post entry had not been placed first on the jury's list, and he got the answer from one of the jurors: "Watergate is just a pimple on the elephant's ass."116 Since the Meritorious Public Service jurors as well as the local reporting jury highly underestimated the importance of the Washington Post's Watergate investigation117 it now was up to the Advisory Board to correct these decisions. "When the Pulitzer board met... at Columbia," according to John Hohenberg, "the outcome was foreordained with Chairman Pulitzer leading the membership in the award of the cherished Pulitzer Prize gold medal for public service to the Washington Post... As a board member, James Reston of the New York Times, made a valiant effort to gain recognition for Woodward and Bernstein; but the rest of the board's membership... ruled that the Post alone deserved the gold medal... Now, the issue went before the university's trustees, who still retained veto power over any prize they disliked," and they approved the award.118 The Washington Post won in the Meritorious Public Service category in 1973 "for its investigation of the Watergate case."119 The names of Woodward and Bernstein were not mentioned. 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119

Public Service Jury Report, March 10, 1972, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 309. Ibid., p. 347. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 8. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Diaries, Syracuse, N.Y., 1997, p. 269. Public Service Jury Report, March 8, 1973, pp. 1 f. Quoted from John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Diaries, op. cit., p. 269. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 210 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 8.

28 In 1974 the jury's first choice was an entry by Newsday which had made "a massive commitment of personnel and funds to report the drug story in its total dimension." Second place went to the New York Times for "reporting art thefts and questionable procedures by which museums dispose of works from their collections." The St. Louis PostDispatch ranked third for "reporting the abuses of individual rights during drug raids." The Philadelphia Bulletin, placed fourth on the jury list, had "documented an alliance between politics and police that threatened the civil rights of Philadelphia citizens."120 For the Advisory Board it was no question that Newsday should earn the Pulitzer Prize "for its definitive report on the illicit narcotic traffic in the United States and abroad."121 "While the resources of the competitors varied widely," the jurors in 1975 stated, they "were impressed by the generally high quality of the sixty-four entries." They listed four finalists in the order of preference as follows: 1. The Boston Globe "for massive and balanced coverage of the Boston school desegregation conflict in a bitterly emotional climate. The Globe courageously withstood pressures from both pro- and anti-busing forces to put the issue into perspective and inform the public impartially." 2. The Indianapolis Star "for a thorough and tenacious investigation of police corruption and weakness in the county prosecutor's office in its city." 3. The Hot Springs (Ark.) Sentinel-Record for "stories attacking official abuses and corruption." 4. The Los Angeles Times "for several series spotlighting problems in the juvenile justice system."122 The winner of the award was the Boston Globed The jury in 1976 "found itself with an extremely challenging and painstaking assignment. The results of our lengthy deliberations," the report says, "are the following recommendations in order: 1. The Anchorage Daily News - The Alaska Teamster Story... 2. The Chicago Tribune - A $ Four Billion Disaster... Focusing on the situation in Chicago, the Tribune found... vacant or destroyed homes owned by the federal government. The Tribune documented how the taxpayers picked up the bill for this waste which was caused principally by the making of high-risk loans and by rapid foreclosure action... 3. The Detroit News - The 'bikers's case'... 4. New York Daily News - State lottery investigation."124 The members of the Advisory Board voted in favor of the Anchorage Daily News "for its disclosures of the impact and influence of the Teamsters Union on Alaska's economy and politics."125 In 1977 the jury recommended the Lufkin News from Texas for the Pulitzer Prize. "A small newspaper, with limited resources," the report says, "chose not to settle for the official explanation of a local Marine's training camp death." The Philadelphia Inquirer was the jury's second choice, this exhibit presenting an "excellent, exhaustive reporting of scandalous conditions in a state hospital for the mentally ill." The Milwaukee Journal was the third choice for its "thorough, comprehensive, reasoned effort to prepare a metropolitan city for school desegregation."126 The award was bestowed to the Lufkin News "for an obituary of a local man who died in Marine training camp, which grew into an investigation of that death and a fundamental reform in the recruiting and training practices of the United States Marine Corps."127 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

Public Service Jury Report, March 8, 1974, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 8. Public Service Jury Report, March 7, 1975, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 8. Public Service Jury Report, March 5, 1976, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 8. Public Service Jury Report, March 4, 1977, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 8.

29

CO 13 «Μ «β-—' *S

•P*

m σ\ ο

ON

•Έ

W

.s

ac

Ή co

I

»*

>" a c S § ΪΙ ίΑί Ist Ms I3sοS5s^s |- S5I sξ !itelsi s*!- 3|ji|ii;; :ι sss ?I sS " i^ ° !2 i

W n5 ο

^

β

3

κ α 5 "S G a q

*» U —ι

Λ ο

.

SS *

1 3 3 0R • W

« • » r t S -Λ ^iiS

Ό

W »H

f

S S Ji M u " c «j „ £ · -S ? S

s*S^^s^t

s ii*-ilst |s l * * 2 sli l s 13 Sl 1

s a.ϊ

5 ° ^ 5

Ό g

α t. id j^ IH 2 t» ·*» o p o "a· "*!«"

δ S S5

Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting, 1962

it;

82 of MIG-21 aircraft."103 Other journalists that were mentioned on various jury reports were Phil Potter of the Baltimore Sun, and Bern Price of the Associated Press. While the jury had not made a common report because of technical problems, the name of the prize-winner was mentioned among the first places of three reports. They had placed Hendrix clearly in the first position in their report, because he had drawn attention to the stationing of missiles in Cuba "by hard digging."104 The fourth juror wrote: "In case the Advisory Board wishes additional opinion, my recollection is that my first choice was the Bern Price Vietnam story and my second Hal Hendrix's report in the Miami News."105 Several of the thirty-four entries submitted to the International Reporting jury in 1964 covered the crisis in Vietnam, two of them written by David Halberstam of the New York Times and by Malcolm W. Browne of the Associated Press. An exhibit by Sanche De Gramont of the New York Herald-Tribune re Cuba also was mentioned on the jury's list as well as articles from South Africa by Smith Hempstone of the Chicago Daily News, and of George Sherman of the Washington Star. "We feel," the jury wrote, "that the work of Malcolm W. Browne of the Associated Press and David Halberstam of the New York Times was brilliant and, most importantly, complementary... Mr. Browne, corresponding for a news service that must be conscious of deadlines around the clock, provided outstanding spot news coverage of dramatic events. Mr. Halberstam, while performing well with his deadlines in mind, concentrated on explanation and background which were indispensible to a full comprehension of the story."^ The Advisory Board followed that opinion and conferred the prize on the two journalists "for their individual reporting of the Vietnam War and the overthrow of the Diem regime."107 The jury which assembled in the spring of 1965, again voted unanimously. "After due consideration," its report says, "the undersigned - by unanimous vote - nominate the work of J. A. Livingston of the Philadelphia Bulletin as the best example of... reporting... Mr. Livingston's series brings into focus a picture of East-West trade and commercial possibilities that were virtually destroyed by the Cold War but have been revived by the recovery and aspirations of Eastern European nations since Stalin's death."10** The jurors also mentioned the following three contestants in their report: Thomas Jefferson Hamilton of the New York Times, Al Burt of the Miami Herald and Paul Wohl of the Christian Science Monitor. The prize was given to Joseph A. Livingston "for his reports on the growth of economic independence among Russia's Eastern European satellites and his analysis of their desire for a resumption of trade with the West."109 The jury of 1966 also had to deal with Vietnam reporting. Peter Arnett and Hugh Mulligan of the Associated Press and Jack Foisie of the Los Angeles Times were the finalists. "If the Board insists on only one person receiving the prize," the jury report says, it should go to Peter Arnett.110 The Board took this option and bestowed the award on Peter Arnett of the Associated Press "for his coverage of the war in Vietnam" during the previous year.11J 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 29. International Reporting Jury Report, March 8, 1963, p. 1. Letter to John Hohenberg, March 13,1963, p. 1. International Reporting Jury Report, March 6,1964, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 29; Heinz-D. Fischer (Ed.), Outstanding International Press Reporting. Pulitzer Prize Winning Articles in Foreign Correspondence, Vol. 3: 1963-1977, Berlin New York 1986, pp. 5 ff. International Reporting Jury Report, March 4,1965, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 29. International Reporting Jury Report, undated (March 1966), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 29.

83 In 1967 the jurors selected six contestants as finalists in the "International Reporting" category. They were in the order of the jury's ratings: Harrison S. Salisbury, correspondent of the New York Times for reporting from Hanoi; Ward Just of the Washington Post for dispatches from Vietnam; Hugh A. Mulligan and Fred S. Hoffmann of the Associated Press for investigations on Vietnam corruption; R. John Hughes of the Christian Science Monitor for reports about Indonesia; Stanley Karnow of the Washington Post for stories about Indonesia; Paul Grimes of the Philadelphia Bulletin for reports from Thailand.112 The Advisory Board was split whether Salisbury, who had won this award about a dozen years ago, should earn his second Pulitzer Prize. But "despite Chairman Pulitzer's championship of Salisbury's cause, the vote went against the Times correspondent."1 ^ After the Advisory Board had rejected Salisbury, it selected R. John Hughes of the Christian Science Monitor, who together with two other candidates was in third place on the jury report. Hughes was awarded the prize "for his thorough reporting of the attempted Communist coup in Indonesia... and the purge that followed."114 The Advisory Board did not follow the jury's proposal in 1968, either, but there were no real problems. The jury members nominated Peter G. Arnett first, a former prizewinner, for his reporting from Vietnam, "presenting a full story of American involvement in the conflict." The New York Times came second for a "series on the 50th anniversary of the Soviet Union," ahead of Alfred Friendly of the Washington Post who did "an outstanding job of reporting on the Middle East. His writing was sharp and incisive and his comprehension of the short war thorough and meaningful and presented in easily understandable manner," the jury report states. Olga Curtis also was mentioned for a "superb individual report on Russia after fifty years of communism."11^ The Advisory Board voted in favor of Alfred Friendly of the Washington Post "for his coverage of the Middle East War" in the previous year.1 ^ The jurors who assembled in the spring of 1969 placed William K. Tuohy of the Los Angeles Times first for stories from Vietnam. Peter Rehak of the Associated Press came next for his "coverage of the Czech crisis." William C. Baggs of the Miami News was third for his dispatches from Vietnam. Other finalists were entries by various journalists from the New York Times and from the Washington Post. But the exhibit by William K. Tuohy "was the only entry appearing on the ballots of every member of the panel and is our unanimous choice for the prize. The panel was impressed by the diligence and hard work manifest in Mr. Tuohy's reporting, by the perception he showed in exploring psychological and other areas of the war, and by his apparently successful efforts to prevent a miscarriage of justice in the Marine trials following 'the incident at Van Duong bridge.'"117 The Advisory Board did not raise any objection and bestowed the Pulitzer Prize in the International Reporting category on William K. Tuohy "for his Vietnam War correspondence" in the preceding year.118 Those jurors who had to pick out the prize-winner in the spring of 1970 favored a relatively unknown free-lancer: Seymour M. Hersh. He had "received a tip on a shocking story from a source he had known at the Pentagon," Hohenberg states and continues: "He 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

International Reporting Jury Report, March 9, 1967, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 297 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 29. International Reporting Jury Report, Marci 7,1968, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 29. International Reporting Jury Report, undated (March 1969), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 29.

84 learned what actually had happened in a hamlet called 'Pinkville' by the American military, which was the village of My Lai, some six miles northeast of Quang Ngai."119 Hersh's revealing reports had been spread by a small news agency, the Dispatch News Service, and had been published in numerous leading newspapers in the U.S. The jury stated in its report that "in the face of disbelief and disinterest on the part of many newspapers, ... Hersh showed initiative, enterprise, and perseverance to break the My Lai story - a story that shook the nation and had vast international repercussion... Hersh's performance met the high journalistic standards for which Pulitzer recognition is traditionally granted."120 The Advisory Board agreed and conferred121 the prize on Seymour M. Hersh "for his exclusive disclosure of the Vietnam War tragedy at the hamlet of My Lai."122 Although the 1971 jury considered two more entries on the "Indochina War," the committee's unanimous choice was Jimmie Lee Hoagland of the Washington Post for his series of articles on South Africa. There were also exhibits by Peter R. Kann, Gloria Emerson and William Tuohy on the shortlist. But the jurors felt, the report continues, "Mr. Hoagland did an outstanding reporting and writing job on a difficult, controversial subject that has generated considerable viewpoint material but very little solid reporting."12·^ He created "a series of articles... to show how cruel and repressive the system is, what its economic and political pressures are, and the effect it has on people both inside and outside the Republic of South Africa."124 The Advisory Board became more explicit and conferred the prize on Jimmie Lee Hoagland "for his coverage of the struggle against apartheid" in South Africa.125 The jury of 1972 unanimously recommended Peter R. Kann of the Wall Street Journal as its first choice, followed by Henry Bradsher of the Washington Star and John Roderick of the Associated Press. But Peter R. Kann's "coverage of East Pakistan's events... impressed every juror. Better than anyone else, he told what it all meant. He displayed initiative in getting into the story early, and in depth, and the quality of his writing in every dispatch vividly told the reader what was going on and why."126 Hohenberg remarks on the series that Peter R. Kann "did not deliberately plan to relate the dramatic end of the 15-day war between India and Pakistan... in terms that would emulate the great masters of the novel... But circumstances had conspired against him. He was penned up in the beleaguered city of Dacca by the oncoming Indian armies. The shattered Pakistani army was on the verge of collapse. The new state of Bangladesh was struggling to be born as the successor to the dismembered skeleton of East Pakistan."127 The Advisory Board bestowed the prize on Peter R. Kann "for his coverage of the Indo-Pakistan War" in the previous year.128 Finding a winner of the Pulitzer Prize in the next year caused some problems again. The jury, which assembled in March 1973, "unanimously recommended the Pulitzer Prize for International Affairs reporting... be awarded to Washington Post correspond119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

John Hohenberg (Ed.), The Pulitzer Prize Story II, New York 1980, pp.181 f. International Reporting Jury Report, March 6, 1970, p. 1. Cf. John Hohenberg (Ed.), The Pulitzer Prize Story II, op. cit., p. 186. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30. International Reporting Jury Report, March 5, 1971, p. 1. John Hohenberg (Ed.), The Pulitzer Prize Story II, op. cit., p. 44. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30. International Reporting Jury Report, March 10, 1972, p. 1. John Hohenberg (Ed.), The Pulitzer Prize Story II, op. cit., p. 122. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30.

85 ents Robert Kaiser and Dan Morgan for their series 'Russia's Changing Empire.'... The committee's unanimous recommendation for second place," it continued, "goes to Max Frankel of the New York Times for his coverage of President Nixon's visit to China. In a highly competitive situation, Frankel's reports distinguish themselves for their comprehensiveness and their readability." For third place the jury selected Henry Shapiro's memoirs of 'Russia in War and Peace.'129 The Advisory Board did not follow the jury's suggestion to award Robert Kaiser and Dan Morgan of the Washington Post. Instead, the Pulitzer Prize was bestowed on Max Frankel of the New York Times "for his coverage of President Nixon's visit to China" in the year before.13^ The jurors who assembled in March 1974 recommended for the award Hedrick Smith, Moscow correspondent of the New York Times. The second choice was Selig S. Harrison of the Washington Post, followed by Henry Bradsher of the Washington StarNews. "Working in an essentially hostile environment," the jurors said, Hedrick Smith had "consistently demonstrated a superior ability to report in a clear, comprehensive, and well-written manner significant developments within the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc."131 The Advisory Board agreed and chose Hedrick Smith "for his coverage of the Soviet Union and its allies in Eastern Europe" in the previous year.132 The jury of the following year, 1975, had some problems in finding the prize-winner. Its members freely confessed that "a variety of stories..., mixed with vivid reports of world significance, presented the jury with difficulties in forming criteria for awards."133 "The jury determined," the report continues, "that for writing skill, content significance, reportorial enterprise and reader impact, the finalists should be: First (a split award): William Mullen, foreign correspondent of the Chicago Tribune, for coverage of the drought and famine in Africa; Alan C. McConogha, Washington correspondent of the Minneapolis Tribune, for coverage of the drought in sub-Sahara Africa... Second: Sydney H. Schanberg, Southeast Asia correspondent of the New York Times, for coverage about the Cambodia War." Other finalists were: Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele of the Philadelphia Inquirer for a major investigation and analysis of the effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid programs; Nick Coleman of the Minneapolis Tribune for coverage of the civil war in Northern Ireland; and Holger Jensen of the Associated Press for eyewitness reporting of the Cyprus fighting.134 The Advisory Board awarded the prize to two journalists, only one of whom was mentioned in the jury report, however. The Pulitzer Prize was given to both William Mullen, reporter, and Ovie Carter, photographer of the Chicago Tribune "for their coverage of famine in Africa and India."135 When the war in Cambodia began all Americans were being evacuated, including correspondents for American news organizations. All except one - Sydney H. Schanberg of the New York Times. The Times had ordered Schanberg to leave along with the rest of the Americans, but he decided on his own responsibility to stay and take his chance on getting out alive. The jury of 1976 saw Schanberg as its favorite in the International Reporting category. On the following ranks came George Esper of the Associated Press and 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

International Reporting Jury Report, March 9,1973, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 30 . International Reporting Jury Report, March 8, 1974, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30. International Reporting Jury Report, March 7, 1975, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30.

86 Keyes Beech and Robert Tamarkin of the Chicago Daily News for covering the fall of Saigon and South Vietnam. William Montalbano of the Miami Herald was also praised by the jurors "for excellent reporting and writing on international affairs." The jury was enthusiastic that "Mr. Schanberg consistently portrayed in great depth and detail and with fine perspective how the war and the government's collapse affected the people of that country," so that they regarded him as "the most distinguished candidate."136 The Advisory Board was of the same opinion and appointed Sydney H. Schanberg prize-winner "for his coverage of the Communist takeover in Cambodia."137 Only one Asian topic was among the top entries of 1977 and it was placed third. First on the jury's list was the exhibit by James Markham and Henry Tanner of the New York Times "for their coverage from Lebanon." Second place went to Larry Heinzerling - son of former winner Lynn L. Heinzerling - of the Associated Press "for stories analyzing the turmoil in southern Africa." Third rank was reached by William F. Woo of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch "for reports from China." The articles by James Markham and Henry Tanner, placed first, were praised by the jurors as "first-hand accounts of the war in Lebanon" and they "represented the finest in writing skills and expository reporting from an unstable, violent setting."13** The Advisory Board decided to give "no award,"139 - a case that had never happened before in the "International Reporting" category. The prize finding in 1978 turned toibe a difficult one, too. The jury's first place vote went to Les Payne of Newsday for reporting from Africa. Second was Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for articles on Vietnam. Reports from Angola brought third place to Leon Dash of the Washington Post. Fourth place was earned by Henry Kamm of the New York Times for a series of Indochina.140 In the end, however, Kamm was the favorite of the Advisory Board, which conferred the Pulitzer Prize on him for that extraordinary series141 which helped to publicize the fate of the 'boat people1 all over the world and thereby to call attention to the painful aftermath of the Vietnam War. The jurors in 1979, after selecting from approximately sixty entries, had these three finalists on their list: First choice was Richard Ben Cramer of the Philadelphia Inquirer for reporting from the Mideast. Linda Mathews of the Los Angeles Times followed for stories from Hong Kong and China. Third rank went to Les Payne of Newsday for a series on Rhodesia. The jury's praise of Richard Ben Cramer was enthusiastic: "His reporting from the Mideast... was perceptive and distinguished," the jury reported; "he coupled that with writing that was clear and graceful. We believe this entry was far superior to the... entries we considered, even to our second choice."14^ The Pulitzer Prize Board, which had replaced the Advisory Board, followed that unanimous recommendation and conferred the prize on Richard B. Cramer "for reports from the Middle East" in the year before.143

136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143

International Reporting Jury Report, March 5, 1976, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30. International Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1977, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30. International Reporting Jury Report, March 3, 1978, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30. International Reporting Jury Report, March 6,1979, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30; Heinz-D. Fischer (Ed.), Outstanding International Press Reporting. Pulitzer Prize Winning Articles in Foreign Correspondence, Vol. 4: 1978-1989, Berlin New York 1991, pp. 5 ff.

87 Reports from Asian countries played an important part in 1980, too. The jury members went into the considerable variety of topics, which emerged from the entries submitted: "Revolution in Iran, invasion of Afghanistan, a government overthrow in Nicaragua, refugees around the world and 'normalization' of United States relations with the Peoples Republic of China were all facets of the international scene... All of these events - and others such as continuing turmoil in Africa and the emergence of Mexico into a new oil-fueled economic era - demanded and received outstanding news coverage during the year."144 The jurors arrived at a list of four containing in alphabetical order: Peter Arnett, Associated Press, for a series of "The World's Homeless;" Joel Brinkley and Jay Mather, Louisville Courier-Journal, for reports from Cambodia; Fox Butterfield, New York Times, for stories from China, and the Los Angeles Times staff for coverage of Iran.145 The jury clearly preferred "Joel Brinkley and Jay Mather, reporter and photographer, performing in the finest tradition of the Pulitzer competition."146 The Pulitzer Prize Board conferred the award on Brinkley and Mather "for stories from Cambodia" in the previous year.147 The jury which assembled in the spring of 1981 suggested a list of three candidates. Shirley Christian of the Miami Herald was the jury's favorite for her dispatches from Central America; the jurors placed Richard B. Cramer of the Philadelphia Inquirer second for his coverage of the Afghanistan rebellion. In third position came Richard Randall of the Providence Journal-Bulletin for his coverage of illegal drug activity in Colombia.148 The jury emphasized that "Shirley Christian's work on Central America was clearly the most outstanding of any the jury read from that area of the world. She displays a superb eye for detail, and combines great writing skill with her obvious expertise on the complex and bewildering problems that bedevil the region. Her work shows an exceptional ability to combine explanatory and straight reporting, and she does that explaining without ever treading over into advocacy. She is careful to select only relevant information..."149 The Pulitzer Prize Board agreed and bestowed the award on Shirley Christian "for her dispatches from Central America" in the year before.150 Sixty-eight entries were submitted to the jury of 1982. They were "the largest number to be submitted in the... history of the awards," the jury reported, ... "one of the best. International reporting... was distinguished by an absorbing interest among American news organizations in developments in Poland and Central America, the major areas of conflict..."151 John Darnton of the New York Times and Dan Fisher of the Los Angeles Times were at the top of the jury's list of three, followed by Ray Mosley of the Chicago Tribune for articles on Black Africa, and Bob Wyrick of Newsday for a series on the operation of American firms abroad. The jury saw the exhibits by John Darnton and Dan Fisher equal on first place "for their reporting of the Solidarity crisis in Poland, culminating with the declaration of martial law." The jury unanimously concluded that both Darnton and Fisher should get the Pulitzer Prize.152 But the Board followed this recommendation only in part, bestowing the award on just one of the two journalists favored by 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152

International Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1980, p. 1. Ibid. Ibid.,p.2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30. International Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1981, p. 1. Ibid., p. 2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30. International Reporting Jury Report, March 3,1982, p. 1. Ibid.,p.2.

88 the jury, namely John Darnton of the New York Times "for his reporting from Poland" during the past year.153 In 1983, when the International Reporting jury had to review seventy-five entries in this award category, according to the report "the quality... was high" in general. The jurors selected three entries as candidates for the prize. "It is the strong view of the jury," the report states, "that two entries reporting on the war in Lebanon stand well above the rest as candidates for the award. These two entries are those of Loren Jenkins of the Washington Post and Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times. The jurors debated and discussed at some length the merits of each of these entries vs. the other. Each is outstanding, but in differing respects... Jenkins' emphasis was on getting the story out daily, as it unfolded. Friedman took time cut from daily filing, stepped back from events, and reconstructed the 'big picture.1 In the jury's view, both efforts are worthy of a Pulitzer Prize. By the narrowest of margins - one vote - the jurors favored Jenkins over Friedman. The board may wish to consider a joint prize. The jury's third candidate is the work of Rod Nordland of the Philadelphia Inquirer. His writing from East Timor, Cambodia and Vietnam was gripping... Nordland's entry, it should be noted, was included in our three nominations after considerable discussion. By a three-to-two vote, jurors selected Nordland's work over the impressive entry of Tony Castro of the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner on the legacy of U.S. policy in El Salvador."154 The Pulitzer Board gave a split award to Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times and Loren Jenkins of the Washington Post "for their individual reporting of the Israeli invasion of Beirut and its tragic aftermath."155 When the members of the Pulitzer Prize International Reporting jury met in 1984, they recommended the following exhibits in alphabetical order by names: Karen House, Wall Street Journal; David Shipler, New York Times; Morris Thompson, Newsday. "Four of the five jurors," the report says, "participated in a discussion of the relative merits of the three finalists, with Ms. House being strongly favored by three jurors and Mr. Thompson by one. The chairman, for whose newspaper Mr. Thompson reports, was not present at any time during the discussion of the Thompson exhibit and did not participate in the final discussion. Ms. House," the jury report continues, "in an extraordinary series of interviews with King Hussein of Jordan, went beyond the conventional journalistic scoop... It is diplomatic reporting of the highest order. Mr. Thompson's stories are recommended for their thorough coverage of the American invasion of Grenada in defiance of official refusals to permit reporters to accompany American forces. In landing near St. George's seven hours after the first American troops hit the Grenada beaches, the Newsday reporter managed to observe the course of events before being detained for twenty-four hours by the American military... Mr. Shipler's coverage of Israel, although excellent, was a distant third in the informal jury discussions. His work has as its subject the mind of a nation. He has managed to accomplish that most difficult of journalistic tasks: Making news of ideas."156 The Board accepted the jury proposal and awarded the International Reporting prize to Karen Elliott House "for her extraordinary series of interviews with Jordan's King Hussein which correctly anticipated the problems that would confront the Reagan administration's Middle East peace plan."157 153 154 155 156 157

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit. p. 30. International Reporting Jury Report, March 9, 1983, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30. International Reporting Jury Report, March 7, 1984, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30.

89 In 1985, when the jury made its selection in this Pulitzer Prize category, for the first time there was a special jury report form which contained these advices to the committee: "Please list your three nominations for the prize in your category in alphabetical order by newspaper. In the space provided beneath each identification line, please supply a brief statement as to why the jury believes that this particular entry deserves to receive the Pulitzer Prize in this category. It is not a part of the jury's charge to offer its preferences among its three nominees." So the report of the international reporting jury only contained the following short information: "New York Times - Gandhi: Classic demonstration of how to cover a major breaking story on the international scene; Newsday: obvious planning, anticipation and recognition of a major story, famine in Africa, enabled Newsday to produce the most comprehensive, incisive report on the subject seen by the jury; Philadelphia Inquirer, David Zucchino, Reporting from Lebanon; clearly David Zucchino distinguished himself in international reporting with masterful dispatches from Lebanon that were both elegant in writing style and totally thorough. "^ The Board gave the award to the Newsday team of Josh Friedman and Dennis Bell, reporter, and Ozier Muhammad, photographer, "for their series on the plight of the hungry in Africa." ^ When the 1986 "International Reporting" jury made its recommendations for this category, it stated the following shortlist in its report: "Rosenthal, Robert, Philadelphia Inquirer. Displays enterprising and courageous reporting as well as unusual insight and compassion. Mainly, however, it stands out for the grace and beauty of its writing. We encourage strong consideration of the 'background' articles on Eritrea, Ethiopia and Sudan. - Simons, Lewis/Carey, Pete and Ellison, Katherine, San Jose Mercury News: Clearly outstanding reporting. Very lucid writing. The submission stands out because it broke news, anticipated international developments, exposed theretofore undisclosed activities with great depth and breadth, and had worldwide impact. - St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch, Banaszynski, Jacqui: Though officially entered in the newspaper's name in other categories," the jurors stated, "we suggest the reporter Ms. Banaszynski be considered for the award. Her narrative and diary touch the reader's emotions because of her vivid writing and because of her special personal candor. The effect is all the more impressive on a subject already widely reported."16^ The Pulitzer Prize Board decided in favor of the San Jose Mercury News entry and gave the award to Lewis M. Simons, Pete Carey and Katherine Ellison "for their... series that documented massive transfers of wealth abroad by President Marcos and his associates and had a direct impact on subsequent political developments in the Philippines and the United States."161 In 1987 the jury members suggested the following three finalists as worthy to receive the award: Phil Bronstein, San Francisco Examiner. "Mr. Bronstein deserves consideration," the jury report says, "despite what appears to be the excessive promotional zeal of his submitting editors. His coverage (of the fall of the Marcos regime in the Philippines) is vivid, detailed and comprehensive. On a story characterized by pack journalism, Mr. Bronstein often was ahead of the pack. He was almost always in the right place at the right time talking to the right people. He clearly understood the story he was covering and, as a result, so do his readers." - Michael Parks, Los Angeles Times: "Mr. Parks 158 159 160 161

International Reporting Jury Report, March 5, 1985, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 30. International Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1986, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 31.

90 covered one of the year's most difficult and competitive stories (of the situation in South Africa) with high professionalism. His coverage was comprehensive, balanced and multi-demensional - dealing with identifiable people as well as with controversial political issues. He writes always with clarity and often with grace." - Mark Patinkin, Providence Journal-Bulletin: "Mr. Patinkin develops an unusual idea - religious intolerance and conflict in three regions (Northern Ireland, India and Lebanon) of the world - with great reporting skill and evocative power. He reports and analyzes complex issues. But he also goes beyond the cliches and constructions of normal reporting to take testimony of individual participants and, through them, to touch all of us - our own prejudices and our own compassion."162 The Board found the Los Angeles Times entry by Michael Parks top because of its "balanced and comprehensive coverage of South Africa."163 The jurors of the 1988 competition in this award category chose the following three finalists: Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times, in the eyes of the jury, "broke new ground" of correspondence from Israel in significant dispatches. Larry Olmstead of the Detroit Free Press had "offered perhaps the most comprehensive ever look at the African National Congress, stripping away myths about an organization, destined to play a key role in unfolding events in South Africa." Rendall Richard of the Providence Journal-Bulletin came on the list of finalists for "a unique and moving study of two mothers: the well-to-do American woman who wants, desperately wants to adopt a baby from a third-world country, and the natural mother who lives in grinding poverty in a remote village," in Latin America.164 The Pulitzer Prize Board selected Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times as the winner. It was already his second award in this category, this time he received the Pulitzer Prize for his "balanced and informed coverage of Israel."16^ In 1989 one of the three finalists also had done outstanding reporting from Israel. It was Glenn Frankel of the Washington Post who had presented an exhibit containing "extraordinary coverage of the uprising in Israeli occupied territories," the jury report states and then adds: "His writing was stylish and gritty throughout. The uprising was a highly controversial story with many sides. Frankel covered it with balance, fairness and immense sensitivity." Bill Keller of the New York Times was praised for his "outstanding coverage of momentous events in the Soviet Union... At the same time, he provided authoritative analysis of the complex forces shaking the foundations of the USSR." David Zucchino of the Philadelphia Inquirer was third on the jury's list for "a brilliantly executed, tightly focused study of what it means to be black in South Africa. In a year when the South African regime imposed tight restrictions on the press, Zucchino was still able to bring the human element back into the coverage... The writing was simply superb."166 This time the Board decided in favor of two journalists. The award went to Glenn Frankel of the Washington Post "for sensitive and balanced reports from Israel and the Middle East," and to Bill Keller of the New York Times "for resourceful and detailed coverage of events in the U.S.S.R."167 When the "International Reporting" jurors met in 1990 they stated their favorites in alphabetical order: Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, New York Times: "Superb reporting (about China) on deadline, under pressure and sometimes under fire, in a difficult 162 163 164 165 166 167

International Reporting Jury Report, March 3, 1987, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 31. International Reporting Jury Report, March 2, 1988, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 31. International Reporting Jury Report, March 1,1989, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 31.

91 culture for reporters. Exhibited great knowledge of the players - both on the ground and behind the scenes. Clearly good preparation went into these stories in earlier months as well as immense effort at time of crisis. They captured intense feelings without being overwhelmed. They retained their scepticism. They got it right." - David Remnick, Washington Post: "Perceptive, human, personal approach to covering tumultuous events in USSR - with first-rate reporting, too... Cumulatively, the pieces provided readers with real insight into what has been happening in the Soviet Union, and why." - Serge Schmemann, New York Times: "He covered the chaos of world-shaking events (in East Germany, West Germany and Eastern Europe) with steady professionalism and clarity. He kept a sense of perspective amid the confusion of thunderous change, combining humanity, color, and even humor with insight..."168 The Board conferred the prize on Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn of the New York Times "for knowledgeable reporting from China on the mass movement for democracy and its subsequent suppression." 169 In 1991, when the Pulitzer Prize "International Reporting" jurors met to select three finalists out of numerous exhibits in this award category, they listed them alphabetically in the following order: Caryle Murphy of the Washington Post was mentioned first. "Her own scene reporting," the jury report states, "gave a unique view of the Iraqi invasion and life in Kuwait after the invasion. She gave glimpses of the life of the hostages, the efforts of the resistance and the behavior of the occupying troops." Second on the list was Serge Schmemann of the New York Times for "his authoritative, well-written coverage of German reunification." His reports were described by the jurors as "distinguished by a special insight into the Soviet dimension of that historic change. His portrait of Chancellor Kohl and of ordinary Germans displayed a keen understanding of the German psyche." An exhibit by a team of the Wall Street Journal on the Middle East was the third finalist. The articles "gave a broad insight" into the region including aspects like inter-Arab history.170 The Pulitzer Prize board was impressed by two entries and split the award. One of the winners was Caryle Murphy of the Washington Post "for her dispatches from occupied Kuwait, some of which she filed while in hiding from Iraqi authorities." The other part of the prize went to Serge Schmemann of the New York Times "for his coverage of the reunification of Germany."171 When the Pulitzer Prize jury members in the "International Reporting" category came together in 1992 to select three finalists with outstanding works from the year before, they delivered a relatively short report which started with Dudley Althaus of the Houston Chronicle. His reports were characterized as an "example of gifted enterprise reporting in an indiscovered part of the world. Cholera is an effective metaphor for the struggle of Third World populations." The jurors added that the articles were "not overwritten." This entry was followed by an exhibit of the Los Angeles Times staff. "Out of a strong field of reportage on the Soviet collapse," the jury report states, "this entry emerged as the strongest. It is comprehensive, prescient and vividly written." The third finalist on the jury's list was Patrick Sloyan of Newsday. "While the news complained about censorship during Desert Storm," the jury report reads, "few if any followed through to penetrate the Pentagon's curtain of control. After covering the war, he (Sloyan) took that knowledge 168 169 170 171

International Reporting Jury Report, March 7, 1990, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 31. International Reporting Jury Report, March 5, 1991, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 31.

92

THURSDAY, AUGUST 2 , 1 «WO

Iraqi Force Invades Kuwait; Tanks, Troops Storm Capital By Caryle Murphy IVasJiHiHiiHt hwi Foreign Service

KUWAIT, Aug. 2 (Thursday)— Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait this morning, driving deep into the country and seizing parts of the capital of this Persian Gulf emirate. ["It is fairly safe to say that Kuwait city is overrun," a White House official said in Washington early this morning.) Heavy machine-gun and mortar fire could be heard through the morning around the palace of the ruling emir, Sheik jabir Ahmed Sabah. Within hours of the invasion, Iraq's ruling council declared that its troops had acted to support Kuwaiti revolutionaries who had conducted a coup against Snbah's government, news agencies reported from Baghdad. Amid fighting in the city this morning, Kuwaiti radio interrupted a program of military music, declaring: "Citizens, your country is being subjected to a barbaric invasion. . . . It is time to defend it." A huge column of black smoke, hundreds of feet high, could be seen above the city water towers that dominate the capital's skyline and stand across the street from the emir's · palace. Kuwaitis reported lhat at least two government ministries—those of information and internal affairs—had been seized by Iraqi troops. News agencies reported Iraqi seizures of other key sites. [In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams said the Iraqi troops were "pushing pretty hard, going far in," he said. He said

IRAN

Rums Ha

IRAN

MILES β» o»vt COOK — THC vwsHweio« POST

the invasion was "not just a border thing." [Just before midnight, the White House issued a statement saying. The United Slates strongly condemns the Iraqi military invasion of Kuwait and calls for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces." The White House lat-

er added. The United Slates is reviewing afl its options in response to this Iraqi aggression." Officials .said there are about 3.300 Americans in the country, including 270 government employees ami their dependents. [The statement said the United Nations Security Council would meet this morning to review the situation.) The Associated Press quoted Western diplomats as saying that large numbers of Iraqi tanks had rumbled into the city. Kuwaiti stale radio said the invasion began at about 2 a.m. local time, less than 24 hours after the Iwo countries had broken off talks aimed at defusing the crisis in their relations caused by Iraqi demands for territorial and financial concessions. The scene in Kuwait city was chaotic. A scries of explosions, lasting almost an hour, could be heard shortly after dawn. They app«-:ired to be coming from north of the city. The Iraqi'border is about 50 miles north of the city. The area near the U.S. Embassy and the emir's palace was sealed by armed police, and sporadic gunfire could be heard on the streets in the area of the palace early this morning. One Western diplomat reported that the shooting appeared to be between Kuwaiti and Iraqi force». [In Washington, Kuwaiti Ambassador Saud Niisir Sabah, a member uf the royal family, said Iraqi forces "have penetrated very deep into the Sec GULF, A28, Col 5

Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting, 1991

93

and with initiative, tenacity and thoroughness enlarged the history of the war in many critical areas."172 The Pulitzer Board selected the articles written by Patrick Sloyan of Newsday as the winning entry, and he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize "for his reporting on the Persian Gulf War, conducted after the war was over, which revealed new details of American battlefield tactics and 'friendly fire' incidents."173 In 1993 the jury's list, written in alphabetical order, started with John-Thor Dahlburg of the Los Angeles Times. According to the jury report, he had done an "impressive job of shoe-leather reporting and conceptualization in identifying the scale of the nuclear problem in the former Soviet Union." Roy Gutman of Newsday, who followed on the list of finalists, in the words of the jurors "identified and pursued the reports of concentration camps, mass systematic rape and other atrocities committed against the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina with unparalleled energy, determination and courage. His coverage defined this war for American readers as the most horrible event in Europe since World War II - while other newspapers treated such a possibility with caution. Gutman's consistent pursuit of the real face of ethnic cleansing proved his initial, early suspicions to be totally justified." The third name on the list was that of Jane Perlez of the New York Times. She provided, in the eyes of the jurors, "the deepening coverage of the Somalia civil war and famine. Her... piece set both the White House and the United Nations moving."174 The Board split this award like two years ago. One of the two prize-winners was Roy W. Gutman of Newsday "for his courageous and persistent reporting that disclosed atrocities and other human rights violations in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina." The other award neither went to John-Thor Dahlburg nor to Jane Perlez but to somebody not mentioned in the jury report. It was John F. Burns of the New York Times who earned the prize "for his courageous and thorough coverage of the destruction of Sarajevo and the barbarous killings in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina."17^ The Pulitzer jury of 1994 had to examine numerous entries in the category of "International Reporting," and it selected these three finalists, listed in alphabetical order by newspaper: A Dallas Morning News team was on the list with works that the jury found "original, comprehensive, and compelling. These articles take on a major contemporary problem with appropriate cross-cultural references," the violence against women. Next on the jury's list was Carol Williams of the Los Angeles Times. Her "writing skills lifted her work above that of her competitors," the jury report states. "Her follow-up on what happens to rape orphans in Bosnia was original, and her analysis of the U.N. role was thorough. She gave her readers a sense of real people in desperate situations." Keith Richburg of the Washington Post concluded the list of finalists. His "mature appreciation of the subtleties and contradictions of Somalia matched his initiative under adverse conditions. His was an unmatched blend of people and policy," the jury report ends.176 For the Pulitzer Board it was clear that the International Reporting award should go to the Dallas Morning News team "for its series examining the epidemic of violence against women in many nations."177 In 1995, when the jurors of the "International Reporting" section had to select the entries in this award category to filter out three finalists worthy of the Pulitzer Prize, 172 173 174 175 176 177

International Reporting Jury Report, March 3, 1992, p. 1. Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1992, p. 3. International Reporting Jury Report, March 3, 1993, p. 1. Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 13, 1993, p. 3. International Reporting Jury Report, March 2, 1994, p. 1. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1994, p. 3.

94 their list contained these names: Barbara Demick of the Philadelphia Inquirer. She had delivered "a beautiful work of advanced reporting and craftmanship. She took a subject that has been well covered in the press and did them all one better" with her reports from Sarajevo. Mark Fritz of the Associated Press was next on the jury's list, where his work was called "a combination of aggressive reporting and spare prose under dangerous conditions, classic wire service reporting as it should be," telling about brutalities in Rwanda. Lewis M. Simons and Michael Zielenziger of the San Jose Mercury News were also mentioned in the jury report, where this statement can be found: "One of our jury described this series (on the growing economic and political influence of overseas Chinese on Asia) as a 'well documented scoop of perception.1 They (Simons and Zielenziger) took an under-appreciated issue of great importance, made all the connections and brought faces and names to the concept."1^ The Pulitzer Board finally decided in favor of Mark Fritz of the Associated Press so that he received the coveted award "for his reporting on the ethnic violence and slaughter in Rwanda."179 When the jurors of 1996 made their selection in the Pulitzer Prize category of "International Reporting," they first named David Rohde of the Christian Science Monitor, who, in view of the jury, "followed his reporter's instinct to document first-hand what was probably the biggest massacre of the Bosnian war. He brought courageous, on-theground reporting and careful cross-checking to the story of the massacre of Bosnian Muslims following the Serb capture of the U.N. 'safe zone' of Srebrenica." Next on the jury's list was Laurie Garrett of Newsday. According to the jurors' statement, she "brought her sophisticated medical knowledge to bring into stark focus the story of a terrifying plague in Zaire. Garrett showed originality, enterprise and courage, since she was at physical risk of contracting the ebola virus, in describing the spread of the disease and its implications for the world." A team of the Wall Street Journal was placed third for a "series of reports on Mexico's peso crisis ..., a model for global economic reporting. The Journal's team of reporters," the jury report continues, "positioned in capitals throughout the world, went beyond the effects of the crisis to investigate and explain its root causes."18° The Pulitzer Prize Board bestowed the award on David Rohde of the Christian Science Monitor "for his persistent on-site reporting of the massacre of thousands of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica."1**1 In 1997, when the jury members did their selection for the Pulitzer Prize, they listed the finalists in alphabetical order. John F. Burns of the New York Times appeared first on the list. "At considerable personal risk," the jurors stated in their report, "Burns gave his readers vivid, powerful accounts of this new chapter in Afghanistan's harrowing modern history. He exploited his own longtime experience in the country to blend history, sociology and dramatic news reporting" to tell the story of the Taliban regime. The staff of the Chicago Tribune was next on the list. The team, according to the jury report, "transformed a compelling human issue into a vehicle for meaningful and relevant foreign correspondence. The individual portraits of struggling families challenge stereotypes about both the causes of and solutions to overpopulation" in many areas of the world. The third nominee on the jury's list, Tony Freemantle of the Houston Chronicle in his reports "illuminated one of today's gravest problems - continuing examples of genocide, war crimes 178 179 180 181

International Reporting Jury Report, March 7, 1995, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 18,1995, p. 4. International Reporting Jury Report, undated (April 1996), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 9, 1996, p. 4.

95 and other abuses against humanity... Freemantle examined the large issues at stake through the tragic case examples of Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, South Africa, El Salvador and Guatemala... In each case he brings home with eloquent passion the human consequences," the jury report concludes.18^ By decision of the Board it was John F. Burns of the New York Times who earned his second Pulitzer Prize for "International Reporting," this time "for his courageous and insightful coverage of the harrowing regime imposed on Afghanistan by the Taliban."183 The jury of 1998 recommended the following exhibits to the Board's consideration: Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times was chosen "for his ability to offer insight on a wide variety of complicated international topics ... Kristof s work ranges widely from malaria's deadly comeback, to the wounds of war in Japan, to the three overlapping wars in the Congo." Next, the jury report mentions John Pomfret of the Washington Post for a series "on Laurent Kabila's rise to power in Zaire and his army's complicity with Rwandan Tutsis in exterminating Hutu refugees ... Pomfret brought to his task a rare ability to master a new part of the world, with impressive investigative acumen and a dogged determination to get a story that the new Congolese government had every reason to keep obscure." The New York Times staff was third on the jury's list. The newspaper's series "on corruption in Mexico and the drug trade provides a powerful application of investigative reporting - including impressive sourcing and corraborating documentation. Together, the stories make an unassailable case; they are equally revealing of the flaws of U.S. intelligence-gathering on the subject. Uncovering critical facts in the 'drug war' is difficult enough. But to get to the corrupt core in such a secretive and dangerous environment represents a major journalistic achievement."184 The Pulitzer Prize Board was impressed by the eulogy on the last exhibit and bestowed the 1998 award for International Reporting on the New York Times staff "for its revealing series that profiled the corrosive effects of drug corruption in Mexico."185 In 1999 the jury's list of three finalists included two newspaper staff exhibits. One exhibit mentioned in the report was written by the staff of the Wall Street Journal, and the jury cited this newspaper's "coverage of the crisis in Russia as an outstanding example of in-depth reporting that brought to life complex and important issues and explained what happened and why, as well as what was likely to happen. The stories went into absorbing detail on the historic missteps in the post Cold War era... In short, a superb example of authoritative, comprehensive - and extremely readable - international reporting." A similar topic was contained in the exhibit by David Hoffman of the Washington Post. The jury found his "coverage of Russia's nuclear legacy to be excellent and frightening - enterprise reporting... His examination of chemical weapons waste heaps and nuclear submarine warehouses - leaking radioactive fuel - was particularly notable... Many of the details he reported had never before been published." An exhibit of the New York Times staff impressed the jurors by its "coverage of the African Embassy Bombing, a series of reports that combined breaking news with strong investigative reporting. The series exposed alarming lapses in security at the American embassies and flaws in official accounts of how the tragedy unfolded."186 As in the previous year, the Board created a group award in the International Reporting category. 182 183 184 185 186

International Reporting Jury Report, March 5, 1997, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1997, p. 3. International Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1998, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 14, 1998, p. 3. International Reporting Jury Report, March 3, 1999, pp. 1 ff.

96 The prize went to the Wall Street Journal staff "for its in-depth, analytical coverage of the Russian financial crisis."187 The three finalists in 2000 consisted of two group entries and of one exhibit for a single journalist. In the jury report the staff of the Associated Press is mentioned first. "In clear, spare language," the report reads, "these AP reporters provided a unique, first-on-the-scene account of the Russian attack on Chechnya... Their reporting of the Chechnyan conflict established a news benchmark and enabled the world to reach its own conclusions about Russian government justification and interpretation of (the) conflict." Next on the jury's list was Mark Schoofs of the Village Voice, New York, with an "account of the AIDS crisis in Africa. Quickly moving past conventional wisdom on the topic," the report says, "he takes the reader into uncharted territory - educating through a deft balance of personal profile and scientific research... It is a tour de force of international reporting." The third exhibit in the jury report came from the staff of the Washington Post: "Citing the comprehensive Kosovo reports of... seven correspondents, the judges praised the extraordinary reporting and compelling writing, which provided readers with in-depth accounts of the war that wracked the European continent at the end of the twentieth century."188 Despite high praise by the jurors in favor of the two group exhibits, the Pulitzer Prize Board decided to bestow the award on Mark Schoofs of the Village Voice "for his provocative and enlightening series on the AIDS crisis in Africa."189 Although the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting has traditionally focused on major world topics, it also has given impetus to a thematic variety. But over the decades this award category sometimes over years was concentrating on war correspondence. Reporting during World War II was highly recognized by the Pulitzer authorities, and so it was during the Korean War and in the time of the Vietnam War. "What the Pulitzer Prizes helped stimulate in all three of these conflicts, was a record, more often than not filed from a battlefield, but only a few correspondents each year were given recognition for their efforts,"190 John Hohenberg explaines. "The important thing about the international awards... is that they have presented us with an extremely valuable legacy of global coverage," a former juror in this award category stressed and he added: "Most of the entries for the international category have been significant, valuable accounts of the international drama... As the world shrinks, this tendency toward home town coverage of global events will increase."191 This is also true in the age of the internet.

187 188 189 190 191

Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1999, p. 3. International Reporting Jury Report, March 1, 2000, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 10, 2000, p. 3. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Diaries, Syracuse, N.Y., 1997, p. 225. John R. Herbert, International Reporting Awards, in: Columbia Library Columns (New York), Vol. VI/No. 3, May 1957, pp. 21 f.

97

5.

PRIZES FOR REPORTING ON REGIONAL EVENTS

When several new award categories were created in 1948 one of them was called "Local Reporting." It was the first time that this specific field of journalism was mentioned within the Pulitzer Prize system. Five years later, the new award changed its name and was now called "Local Reporting, Edition Time." Another decade later, the award got another label: "Local General Spot News Reporting." All three prizes concentrated on coverage of regional affairs.

5.1

Local Reporting Award

The original description of this award category was as follows: "For a distinguished example of local reporting in a United States newspaper, published daily, Sunday or at least once a week, during the year, the test being accuracy and terseness, due consideration being given to news stories prepared under the pressure of edition time; and also to the initiative and resourcefulness of the reporter..."1 Since the jury reports from the early years of this Pulitzer Prize category are not available it cannot be said how the discussion of the jurors ran while selecting potential award-winners. In 1948 George E. Goodwin of the Atlanta Journal was the recipient of the prize, "for his story of the Telfair County vote fraud" in the preceding year.2 Malcolm Johnson of the New York Sun won the award in 1949 "for his series of twenty-four articles entitled 'Crime on the Waterfront' in New York City."·^ The story was turned into the Oscar'winning movie On the Waterfront,' by film director Elia Kazan, starring Marlon Brando, Rod Steiger and Karl Maiden.4 In 1950 the jury, after the examination of seventy-nine entries in the local reporting category, submitted to the Board the following nominations, arranged alphabetically: Meyer Berger of the New York Times, Norma Lee Browning of the Chicago Tribune, James J. Cullinane and W. H. Shippen Jr., of the Washington Evening Star, Walter Finley of the El Paso Herald-Post, and an exhibit by twelve editors and reporters of the Philadelphia Bulletin.5 Meyer Berger's entry, according to the jury report, was "an example of meticulous gathering of facts, vividly presented. In clear, easily understandable language the reporter took the reader with him... It is a fine piece of descriptive writing done with a restraint that distinguishes it as outstanding reporting." Browning's exhibit was called "intelligent, courageous reporting," while Cullinane and Shippen showed "a well-informed background."6 The Board decided in favor of Meyer Berger of the New York Times who received the award "for his four-thousand word story on the mass killings by Howard Unruh in Camden, N.J."7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Quoted from the Pulitzer Prize Journalism Entry Form, 1948. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes 1917-1991, New York 1991, p. 12. Ibid. Cf. Roy Pickard, The Award Movies, New York 1981, p. 95. Local Reporting Jury Report, undated (March 1950), p. 1. Ibid, p. 2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 12.

98 The winner of 1951 was Edward S. Montgomery of the San Francisco Examiner "for his series of articles on tax frauds which culminated in an expose within the Bureau of Internal Revenue."8 In 1952 it was George de Carvalho of the San Francisco Chronicle who earned the Pulitzer Prize "for his stories of a 'ransom racket' extorting money from Chinese in the United States for relations held in Red China."9 This was the last year the "Local Reporting" award was in existence. It was followed by a similar prize in the following year.

5.2

Local Reporting, Edition Time Award

The definition for this new category was slightly different from the former prize. It said: "For a distinguished example of local reporting in a United States newspaper published daily, Sunday or at least once a week, during the year, the test being the quality of local news stories written under the pressure of edition time."10 In the first two years of this award the prize went to entire staffs of newspapers rather than to single journalists. In 1953 the Providence Journal and Evening Bulletin editorial staff won "for their spontaneous and cooperative coverage of a bank robbery and police chase leading to the capture of the bandit."11 And in 1954 the Vicksburg Sunday PostHerald from Mississippi received the award "for its outstanding coverage of the tornado" of December of the previous year, "under extraordinary difficulties."12 The jury of 1955 had five competitors on its shortlist, placed in order of preference: Caro Brown of the Texas paper Alice Daily Echo; Herman F. Schaden of the Washington (D.C.) Star; the Local Staff of the Oregonian of Portland, Or.; the Bulletin and the Journal of Providence, R.I., and the Jackson Daily News from Mississippi. The exhibit by Caro Brown was "based on a series of news articles written under unusual pressure, both of edition time and difficult, perhaps even dangerous, circumstances," the jury stated.13 The Board was impressed by the work and gave the Pulitzer Prize to Caro Brown of the Alice Daily Echo "for a series of news stories dealing with the successful attack on one-man political rule in neighboring Duval County."14 First choice of the jurors in 1956 was an entry by the Call-Chronicle of Allentown, Pa., for reporting on a flood. It was followed by an exhibit of the Honolulu Advertiser for coverage of a volcano eruption. Third on the list was Lee Hills of the Detroit Free Press who had done "an outstanding job of labor reporting." Next was the Alaska paper Fairbanks Daily News Miner with reports about a jet aircraft disaster. Ed Montgomery of the San Francisco Examiner was fifth on the jury's list for his crime reporting.15 The Advisory Board did not accept the jury's recommendation for first place but bestowed the award on the third-ranking entry. The winner, therefore, was Lee Hills of the Detroit Free Press "for his aggressive, resourceful and comprehensive front page reporting of

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Ibid. Ibid. Quoted from the Pulitzer Prize Journalism Entry Form, 1953. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 13. Ibid. Local Reporting, Edition Time Jury Report, undated (March 1955), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 13. Local Reporting, Edition Time Jury Report, March 12, 1956, pp. 1 f.

99

the United Automobile Workers' negotiations with Ford and General Motors for a guaranteed annual wage."16 The jury of 1957 also named five finalists and recommended them in the order listed: 1. William J. Gibb of the Tuscaloosa News for his coverage of the admission of Autherine Lucy to the University of Alabama. 2. The Staff of the Salt Lake Tribune from Utah for coverage of a crash of airliners. 3. The Birmingham News from Alabama for reporting about a tornado that killed numerous people. 4. The Jamestown Post-Journal from the State of New York for its coverage of a flood which ravaged western Pennsylvania and southwestern New York. 5. The Minneapolis Star News for coverage of the campaign visit to Minneapolis of President Eisenhower.17 Again, the Board did not follow the jury's proposal for first rank. The award went to the 5α// Lake Tribune "for its prompt and efficient coverage of the crash of two airliners over the Grand Canyon."1** In 1958 the jurors found "two outstanding" entries: 1. The Hartford Times "for a detailed account of the killing of FBI Agent Richard P. Horan and the subsequent suicide of his slayer." 2. The Fargo Forum of North Dakota "for coverage in great detail of a tornado." The jurors declared themselves unable "to agree upon a recommendation as between these two entries," and they added: "A third entry found worthy of mention was that of the Nashville Tennessean" for reporting on "the dynamiting of the Hattie Cotton school."19 The Advisory Board decided in favor of the entry by the Fargo Forum. This paper received the Pulitzer Prize "for its swift, vivid and detailed news and picture coverage of a tornado which struck Fargo... Proceeding under considerable difficulty and overcoming many handicaps, a small but skilled staff put out a complete tornado edition within five hours after the disaster."20 The jury's list in 1959 recommended "three types of stories" for the award. "On the serious side," the report states, "we pick the stories by Mary Lou Werner in the Washington (Evening) Star on the reporting of the segregation fight in Virginia... On the 'blood and thunder' side we recommend the prize be divided between the Lincoln Evening Journal and Nebraska State Journal staff and Del Harding and the Lincoln Star News staff for their coverage of the Starkweather murders in Nebraska... On the side of simply fine writing of a news story we prefer that by Scott Summers of the News Herald, Morgantown, North Carolina, for his three stories on the murder of a 72-year-old man by a 16 year-old boy."21 This time the Advisory Board selected the first-ranking applicant. The prize went to Mary Lou Werner of the Washington Evening Star "for her comprehensive year-long coverage of the integration crisis in Virginia which demonstrated admirable qualities of accuracy, speed and the ability to interpret the news under deadline pressure in the course of a difficult and taxing assignment."22 In 1960 the jurors gave their "first recommendation to the staff of the Houston Press for its superb coverage of the explosion at the Poe School in Houston... In every case the stories were well organized, well written and rich in detail. The jury considers it an outstanding job of covering a fast-breaking story under tremendous pressure. The jury wishes to commend the coverage by the Long Island Daily Press of the airliner crash in 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 13. Local Reporting, Edition Time Jury Report, undated (March 1957), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 13. Local Reporting, Edition Time Jury Report, March 10,1958, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 13. Local Reporting, Edition Time Jury Report, undated (March 1959), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 13.

100 the East River... This story was put second to the Houston Press only because the Long Island paper had a somewhat longer time in which to organize its staff, get the information and hit the street. Also worthy of mention," the jury report concludes, are the Middletown Daily Record from New York State "for its day-by-day coverage of the trial of Malcolm R. White for the shooting of labor-leader Alfred F. Dugan, and the Deseret News for its coverage of the earthquake in Yellowstone National Park."23 This time the Board did not accept any of the jury's proposals but gave the award to John H. Nelson of the Atlanta Constitution "for the excellent reporting in his series of articles on mental institutions in Georgia."24 The jurors of 1961, at the beginning of their report, wished "to express their disappointment with both the quality and quantity of entries in this category. The production of copy under pressure of deadline is the backbone of the daily newspaper; yet there were fewer than two score entries. The jurors could find no entry that was clearly and overwhelmingly outstanding. Disregarding the importance of subject matter, the jurors were impressed by two stories written under pressure of deadline. They were by Will Stevens of the San Francisco Examiner (and) by Sanche De Gramont of the New York Herald-Tribune. For good, solid day-to-day coverage marked by excellent writing the jurors noted the work of Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times."^ The Board picked the entry by Sanche De Gramont of the New York Herald-Tribune, who earned the Pulitzer Prize "for his moving account of the death of Leonard Warren on the Metropolitan Opera stage."26 In 1962 the jury declared that it "could find no example of individual reporting under pressure of deadline that was so outstanding as to be unquestionably worthy of a Pulitzer Prize. With that comment," the jury report continues, "we call attention to the following: (a) the entries of the Birmingham News and the Alabama Journal-Montgomery Advertiser. Both of these are staff efforts. Both of them deal with the riots connected with the so-called 'Freedom Riders'...; (b) the reporting of Robert Mullins of the Deseret News. Dealing with kidnap-murder this was not a story of great 'significance' in the sense that crime happens every day everywhere. But it seemed to us," the jurors said, "that this was an unusually thorough job of hard reporting under exceptionally trying circumstances and constant deadline pressure...; (c) the work of Theo Wilson of the New York Daily News on hurricane Carla."27 The award went to Robert D. Mullins of the Deseret News of Salt Lake City "for his resourceful coverage of a murder and kidnapping at Dead Horse Point, Utah."28 The jurors of 1963 were happy "that there were a number of outstanding entries submitted in this category." They added: "It is the opinion of this jury that the New York World-Telegram coverage of the American Airlines crash... clearly stands out above all others and demonstrates the speed and accuracy with which a trained newspaper staff can operate under difficult conditions... The jury also thought that outstanding reporting under the pressure of deadline was done by Don Gervase and Riley Murray of the Detroit Free Press. They quickly rounded up the facts in the fall of members of the Wallenda high wire act, killing two and injuring four others." The second runner-up was an entry 23 24 25 26 27 28

Local Reporting, Edition Time Jury Report, undated (March 1960), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 13. Local Reporting, Edition Time Jury Report, undated (March 1961), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 13. Local Reporting, Edition Time Jury Report, undated (March 1962), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 13.

101

Heralir

A European Edition Ii Pobllihtd D«ily in Firli

March 5, 1960

Leonard Warren Dies at the Met Audience Aghast as Baritone Is Stricken on Stage By Sanche de Gramont Leonard Warren, leading baritone of the Metropolitan Opera, died last night on the stage where he had sung for more than twenty years. The forty - nine - year - old singer collapsed as he was ending the second act of Verdi's "La Forza del Destino." He fell forward as he was making his exit at 10:05 p. m., and twentyfive minutes later the -house physician pronounced him dead, victim of a heart attack. There was an awesome moment as the singer fell. The rest of the cast remained paralyzed. Finally some one in the capacity audience called out "For God's sake, ring down the curtain." The curtain came down, ambulances were called, and a member of the cast tried mouth-to-mouth respiration. A L A S T R O L E courtesy: MET priest arrived to administer the Members of the staff who last rites to the singer, who was came from the stage weeping a recent convert to Roman Ca- announced that the opera star tholicism. was dead... Pulitzer Prize for Local Reporting, Edition Time, 1961

102 of the Harrisburg Patriot-News from Pennsylvania written by John Travers: "This medium-sized daily did an amazing job in blanketing the coverage of a train wreck," the jury wrote.29 The Board bestowed the award on Sylvan Fox, Anthony Shannon and William Longgood of the New York World-Telegram and Sun "for their reporting of an air crash in Jamaica Bay" in the previous year.30

5.3

Local General Spot News Reporting Award

In 1964 the local reporting award category was renamed, again. The new prize definition was as follows: "For a distinguished example of local general or spot news reporting, preferably by an individual, giving consideration to alertness, resourcefulness and high quality of writing."31 When the jury of this new category assembled in spring, 1964, it recommended for first place Milton Lewis and Newton H. Fulbright of the New York Herald-Tribune for the coverage of a trial. Second rank went to Norman C. Miller of the Wall Street Journal for a story of missing vegetable oil. "The committee considered at length," the jury report states, "several entries showing how newspapers covered the Kennedy assassination. The committeemen believe that awards in this category should be reserved for individuals who display unusual alertness and resourcefulness. Many newspapers did an outstanding job of covering the Kennedy assassination, but that is what good newspapers are expected to do."32 The Advisory Board gave the Pulitzer Prize to Norman C. Miller Jr. of the Wall Street Journal "for his comprehensive account of a multi-million dollar vegetable oil swindle in New Jersey."33 In 1965 the jurors' shortlist contained six finalists. They recommended that the Advisory Board grant the prize to Charles M. Dunagin and Charles B. Gordon of the McComb Enterprise-Journal from Mississippi. Second place went to Samuel F. Marshall of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer. Third rank, in the jurors' opinion, belonged to Bernard Gavzer of the Associated Press. Fourth choice was the work by Melvin H. Ruder of the Hungry Horse News, a weekly publication from Columbia Falls, Montana. Fifth in the jury's voting was Ernest Lenn of the San Francisco Examiner. Sixth came a team's work for the Rochester Times-Union?4 The Advisory Board voted in favor of the fourth-ranking entry on the jury's list. The award thus went to Melvin H. Ruder of the Hungry Horse News "for his daring and resourceful coverage of a disastrous flood that threatened his community, an individual effort in the finest tradition of spot news reporting."35 The jurors of 1966 listed the following three finalists: 1. John G. McCullough of the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin for "a penetrating and courageous report on the individuals comprising the city's power structure. It is an outstanding example of the kind of indepth reporting about urban society which only a newspaper can do," the report says. 2. William V. Federici and Theo Wilson of the New York Daily News for reports about a complicated constellation in Miami. 3. Tie between Richard Bowman of the San Diego 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Local Reporting, Edition Time Jury Report, undated (March 1963), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 13. Quoted from the Pulitzer Prize Journalism Entry Form, 1964. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 6, 1964, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 14. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1965, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 14.

103

Union "for his coverage under fire of a four-hour gun battle involving police and the doped-up killer of a pawn shop owner," and Barrett McGurn of the New York HeraldTribune, "who had a seven-hour beat on the Pope's projected trip to the United States, and for his graphic reporting of the visit."36 None of these finalists won the prize. Instead it was bestowed on the Los Angeles Times staff "for its coverage of the Watts riots."37 In 1967 the jury named the following six finalists, placed in alphabetical order: Edith E. Asbury of the New York Times had "demonstrated a fine news sense in persistent pursuit of a story;" the staff of the Austin American-Statesman from Texas was praised for "the quality of the reporting under deadline pressure;" Jimmy Breslin of the New York World Journal Tribune impressed the jurors in many ways; Robert V. Cox of the Chambersburg Public Opinion from Pennsylvania comprised "a high type of journalistic effort. His work," the jurors stated, "won the unanimous and enthusiastic vote by the committee. It was judged the outstanding entry in this category." William T. Rives of the Denton Record-Chronicle from Texas had presented "old-fashioned journalism, but... at its very best." Finally, Dewey Turner of the DeKalb Tribune from Georgia had "represented outstanding journalistic achievement."38 The Board accepted the jury's favorite, and Robert V. Cox of the Chambersburg Public Opinion won the prize "for his vivid deadline reporting of a mountain manhunt that ended with the killing of a deranged sniper who had terrorized the community."39 The jury of 1968 "was greatly impressed" by the Detroit Free Press exhibit about riots in Detroit in the year before. "The paper," according to the jurors, "went well beyond accounts of the action and its impact on individual citizens. It probed for causes of the rioting; it analyzed what might have happened if the Detroit police had acted sooner and more forcefully when the disturbance began; it examined police and National Guard excesses." Second choice of the jury was an exhibit of the Cleveland Plain Dealer for the coverage of the collapse of a bridge. Third rank went to the Chicago Tribune. Other entries that the jury favored were those of the Chicago American, of Newsday and of the Washington News.40 The award was bestowed on the Detroit Free Press "for its coverage of the Detroit riots..., recognizing both the brilliance of its detailed spot news staff work and its swift and accurate investigation into the underlying causes of the tragedy."41 In 1969 the jurors stated at the beginning of their report that in this award category "the field was rich. Nevertheless, the... jurors found solid unanimous agreement in determining their first choice...: Bill R. Gibbons of the Gaffney Ledger from South Carolina... Through his personal initiative, clearheadedness and professional competence, not only was an unfolding news story related clearly but also a community was relieved of a mounting burden of fear." Other choices by the jury were the following: Leonard Buder for "excellent coverage of a most complex subject." Third rank went to John Fetterman for his "splendid example of resourcefulness in pursuing a dramatic story in a community which might not have been too easy to penetrate." Fourth choice was Anne K. Sawyer for "a compelling series that makes the drug and sex cult come alive." Fifth rank came to a staff entry by the Washington Post.42 The Board choose the finalist placed third, John 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, undated (March 1966), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 14. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, undated (March 1967), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 14. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, undated (March 1968), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 14. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 7, 1969, pp. 1 f.

104

D. Fetterman of the Louisville Times and Courier-Journal, "for his article 'Pfc. Gibson Comes Home,' the story of an American soldier whose body was returned to his native town from Vietnam for burial."43 Four finalists can be found on the jury list of 1970. First was Haynes Johnson of the Washington Post. His "concept of coverage," according to the jurors, "was resourceful and through persistence he developed news sources with warm and appealing human interest." Second came C. Fräser Smith of the Providence Evening Bulletin for his "superior reporting, based on keen observation, perception, resourcefulness, and alertness." Third was Lindsy Van Gelder of the New York Post for "reporting that typifies the best in American Journalism." Fourth rank was given to Thomas Fitzpatrick of the Chicago Sun-Times for his "excellent job of objective reporting, good writing, void of point of view..."44 The Advisory Board was most impressed by this exhibit, and the Pulitzer Prize was given to Thomas Fitzpatrick of the Chicago Sun-Times "for his article about the violence of youthful radicals in Chicago, Wild Night's Ride With SDS.'"45 In 1971 the jury's first place recommendation was a tie between James V. Healion of United Press International and the staff of the Akron Beacon-Journal. The tie, according to the jurors, "reflects our recognition of the differing merits of an outstanding individual effort and an outstanding staff effort. We were impressed by the enterprise shown by Mr. Healion in reporting police cover-up of the facts in the killing of two burglars, his persistence in seeking rectification of the injustice, and the final successful conclusion of his efforts." The Akron Beacon Journal had "reported the Kent State killings fast and completely, maintaining commendable balance in the face of strong local emotions and incorrect rumors which beset the area." Third place went to Edward N. Hershey and Andrew V. Fetherston of Newsday, fourth was John Hurst of the Redding RecordSearchlight from California. Fifth rank was given to Dial Torgerson of the Los Angeles Times, and Jim Nicholson of the Philadelphia Inquirer was put on sixth place.46 The award was bestowed on the staff of the Akron Beacon-Journal from Ohio "for its coverage of the Kent State University tragedy."47 The jury of 1972 considered nearly one-hundred entries and it unanimously agreed to recommend three exhibits in the following order: 1. Richard Cooper and John Machacek of the Rochester Times-Union. "In support of our first place recommendation, the jury felt," the report states, "it represented the most outstanding example of alertness and resourcefulness by first printing the biggest single newsbreak in probably the biggest domestic news story of the year." 2. William Sherman of the New York Daily News for "a classic job of answering the 'why' of a big local story." 3. Patrick K. Lynn of the Pacifica Tribune from California for "his single story disclosing the secret marriage of the local Catholic priest... Patrick Lynn handled the story with great skill and courage. The result was a clearly, unemotionally-written account... It was a one-shot story that shook the town, the San Francisco diocese and the nation."48 The prize was given to Richard L. Cooper and John W. Machacek of the Rochester Times-Union "for their coverage of the Attica, New York, prison riot."49 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 14. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, undated (March 1970), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 14. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 5, 1971, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 14. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 10, 1972, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 14.

105 In 1973 the jurors unanimously recommended the awarding of the Pulitzer Prize to William L. Claiborne of the Washington Post "for his enterprising, incisive and courageous reporting of the prison situation in the District of Columbia... The members of the jury feel strongly," the report reads, "that his work represents the high ideals of the Pulitzer Prize history." In a runner-up role, the jury commended the work of Marcus Gleisser of the Cleveland Plain Dealer "for a careful examination of the problems of neighborhoods in decline." The third entry on the jury's shortlist was the work by Gordon Grant of the Los Angeles Times, who had "produced a telling article on how the tragedy of a single drug addict spills over into an entire family's life." Finally, the jury report mentioned a submission of the Rapid City Journal from South Dakota "for its coverage of a disastrous flood which swept through the section."50 This time the Board did not accept any of the proposals but bestowed the award on the Chicago Tribune "for uncovering flagrant violations of voting procedures in the primary election" of March in the year before.51 The jury of 1974 recommended the following three entries for award consideration: 1. Arthur Petacque and Hugh Hough of the Chicago Sun-Times. Their exhibit was praised by the jurors "because it is an outstanding example of local reporting, characterized by painstaking investigation and brilliant writing." 2. John Cranfill of the Dallas Morning News. His entry was placed on the list "because it alerted readers... to the approaching energy crisis. The reporter developed these stories on his own initiative." 3. Martin Tolchin of the New York Times. According to the jury, his "series on the South Bronx brought the deterioration of an inner city area into sharp focus. It is both well-written and thoroughly reported. It served to educate readers... to a major problem afflicting metropolitan areas all over the country."52 The award went to Arthur M. Petacque and Hugh F. Hough of the Chicago Sun-Times "for uncovering new evidence that led to the reopening of efforts to solve the 1966 murder of Valerie Percy."53 In 1975 the jury recommended to the Advisory Board the following entries, in order of preference: 1. Wendell Rawls Jr. and Susan Stranahan of the Philadelphia Inquirer for covering the Wilkes-Barre flood of the preceding year. 2. Reg Murphy of the Atlanta Constitution who was kidnaped and then "typed a superb, colorful but dispassionate account of his abduction," the jury report states. 3. Melinda M. Foote of the Palm Beach Post. Her series "on sugar cane cutters imported into Florida was full of human detail. It got into the minds and homes of the migrant laborers to an unusual degree," the jurors said. In a further note to the Board the jury suggested that a special citation be awarded to the staff of the Xenia Daily Gazette from Ohio "for its courage and determination."54 This time the Board did not accept any of the three jury favorites but gave the award to the staff of the Xenia Daily Gazette "for its coverage, under enormous difficulties, of the tornado that wrecked the city" in April of the previous year.55 The jurors of 1976 also named three finalists. First place was given to Gene Miller of the Miami Herald. His "alertness and resourcefulness," the jury expressed, "were in the highest tradition of journalism. The impact of his stories was strengthened by clear and forceful writing." Second place went to the reporting staff of the Omaha World-Herald 50 51 52 53 54 55

Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 9, 1973, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 14. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, undated (March 1974), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 14. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 7, 1975, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 14.

106 "for its work in covering a disaster by a surprise tornado. This entry," the jurors added, "is an example of an outstanding mobilization of a reporting team to keep a community completely and quickly informed in time of disaster." Mike Royko of the Chicago Daily News was ranked third: "His reporting was responsible for justice being done in the beating of a Navy recruit... Royko's forceful writing combined with resourceful reporting demonstrated how the press serves as a public watchdog when normal channels of justice are subverted," the jury report says.56 The Board voted in favor of Gene E. Miller of the Miami Herald "for his persistent and courageous reporting over eight and one-half years that led to the exoneration and release of two men who had twice been tried for murder and wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death in Florida."57 In 1977 the five jurors gave a detailed account of their voting. They had "three votes for a series on aging by Margo Huston, the Milwaukee Journal. One vote was cast for the coverage of the Scotia mine disaster by the Courier-Journal of Louisville. One judge," the report states, "felt the two entries should be given equal consideration... Margo Huston took a subject of vital interest that has been exhaustively reported in American newspapers. She made this difficult subject compelling and moving through outstanding writing and meticulous reporting. The distinguishing characteristic of the CourierJournal's coverage was the consistency of both news and human interest reporting, written to a standard which impressed the jury as unusually high, a textbook example of newspapering at its best against deadline."58 The members of the Advisory Board bestowed the Pulitzer Prize on Margo Huston of the Milwaukee Journal "for her reports on the elderly and the process of aging."5^ The jury of 1978 decided to recommend a list of four to the Board. First choice was Richard Whitt of the Louisville Courier-Journal for his coverage of a fire and subsequent articles telling what happened and how it happened. Second rank went to an entry of the Washington Post "for its comprehensive, sensitive and resourceful coverage" of a group of terrorists. Donald C. Drake of the Philadelphia Inquirer reached third place "for his well-written, sensitively done story of an incident," the killing of a baby in a hospital. Fourth choice was Robert A. Erlandson of the Baltimore Sun "for his resourceful reporting and high quality of writing in his coverage" of a trial.60 The winner was Richard E. Whitt of the Louisville Courier-Journal "for his coverage of a fire that took 164 lives at the Beverly Hills Supper Club at Southgate, Ky., and subsequent investigation of the lack of enforcement of state fire codes."61 In 1979 the jury found the San Diego Evening Tribune's coverage of an air collision an outstanding example in this award category and recommended this entry "without reservation." On second place came the entry of a woman who "provided an insight new to the jury - the decentralizing treatment of mental illness." It was Nina Bernstein of the Milwaukee Journal: she, in the eyes of the jury, "was alert and resourceful enough to see the possibilities of this story, and to follow it through, in routine coverage of a public meeting." Murray Dubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer, ranked third, "showed an outstanding combination of excellent reporting and good writing under deadline pressure about a police action in Philadelphia... His reporting," the jury added, "coupled with the 56 57 58 59 60 61

Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 5, 1976, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit, p. 14. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1977, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 15. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 3, 1978, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 15.

107

efforts of others at the Inquirer staff, provided the background for his exciting account of the battle-like conditions."62 The Pulitzer Prize Board bestowed the award on the San Diego Evening Tribune "for its coverage of the collision of a Pacific Southwest airliner with a small plane over its city."6·* The jurors of 1980 made three nominations in alphabetical order, all of them staff exhibits. Most unusual, the Chicago Tribune staff was represented with two entries, one dealing with an aircraft disaster, the other one reporting about a blizzard. "Both Tribune entries," the jury report states, "displayed extraordinary enterprise and dispatch in reporting breaking stories of complexity affecting large numbers of people. (The) coverage was aggressive, complete... and marked by superior writing." The staff of the Greensboro Daily News from North Carolina had presented the coverage of a Klan shootout. "This newspaper performed with responsibility in covering dramatic, tragic and potentially inflamatory news," the jurors said. Finally, the Philadelphia Inquirer staff was on the list for the coverage of an accident at a nuclear power plant. "Newspapers had never before been called upon to cover a story precisely such as this one," the jurors said.64 It was no surprise that the Board gave the Pulitzer Prize to the staff of the Philadelphia Inquirer "for coverage of the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island."65 In 1981 the jury named four finalists in alphabetical order: the Baltimore News American staff for "The Snowball Tragedy;" Janet Cooke of the Washington Post for "EightYear-Old Heroin Addict;" the Longview Daily News staff from the State of Washington for "Mt. St. Helens," and the Miami Herald newsroom staff for "Three Days of Rage: The Miami Riots." The jury's "unanimous choice for the Pulitzer Prize in this category was the Longview Daily News staff for its superb coverage of the Mt. St. Helens story... Their stories were informative and interesting without being sensational," the jury report says and then adds: "The relatively small staff made maximum use of limited resources and continued its fine coverage into the weeks of aftermath." Second place went to Janet Cooke, third rank was reached by the Baltimore News American staff, and fourth place was given to the Miami Herald entry.66 The award was bestowed on the Longview Daily News staff "for its coverage of the Mt. St. Helens story, including the photographs by Roger A. Werth."67 The jurors of 1982 recommended unanimously that the prize "be awarded to Ken Wells, a reporter for the Miami Herald. Mr. Wells has written an outstanding series on the water problems of Florida." The jurors were also unanimous in their choice of the runner up. "We believe," they said in their report, "the series on drug smuggling in Dixie County, Florida, by Lucy Morgan of the St. Petersburg Times also meets every standard." The jury had more difficulty in determining its third choice, and ultimately it voted to recommend two additional stories: (1) "the massive and excellent coverage" of the collapse of the Hyatt Hotel by the staffs of the Kansas City Star and Kansas City Times, and (2) the outstanding staff effort of the Louisville Courier-Journal in reporting on an explosion in the sewer system of Louisville. "We emphasize, however," the jurors said, "that we believe that neither of these staff-wide efforts matches the two individual

62 63 64 65 66 67

Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 6, 1979, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 15. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 5, 1980, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 15. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 3, 1981, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 15.

108

efforts of Mr. Wells and Mrs. Morgan."68 The Board thought different and gave the award to the Kansas City Star and Kansas City Times "for coverage of the Hyatt Regency Hotel disaster and identification of its causes."69 In 1983 the jury's "unanimous recommendation" for the prize was the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel from Indiana. "The scope, thoroughness and caliber of the reporting... was superb. With a limited staff," the jury report states, "the breadth of the coverage was remarkable." The Dallas Morning News was represented on the jury's shortlist by "an unusually thorough first day package with its coverage of the collapse of Braniff Airlines. The amount, breadth and quality of the staffs work on deadline... was extraordinary." Third on the list was the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. "The restrained writing, the detailed graphics and the thorough reporting not only informed the public but also put a nuclear power plant accident in perspective that averted public panic," the jurors said.70 The Board accepted the jury's favorite and the Pulitzer Prize was bestowed on the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel editorial staff "for its courageous and resourceful coverage of a devastating flood" in the previous year.71 The jurors in 1984 first mentioned an entry of the Fresno Bee from California for reporting on a powerful earthquake in the year before. "The Bee staff," in the eyes of the jury, "did a superb job under pressure... a first class performance all around." Second choice was an entry of Newsday for its coverage of Baby Jane Doe, a child badly deformed at birth. The performance of the newspaper was called "imaginative, enlightening, sensitive and clear." Third rank was given to Leslie A. Seism of the Bucks County Courier Times for her coverage of Emmerick Academy. It was, as the jury said, "an outstanding example of a reporter's ability to sniff out a major news story while on a routine assignment... Dynamite work by a young reporter."72 The Pulitzer Prize Board voted in favor of the Newsday team of reporters "for their enterprising and comprehensive coverage of the Baby Jane Doe case and its far-reaching social and political implications."73 This was the last time that the "Local General Spot News Reporting" award was given.

68 69 70 71 72 73

Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 2, 1982, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 15. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 8, 1983, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 15. Local General Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 7, 1984, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 15.

109 6.

PRIZES FOR DIVERSE REPORTAGE CLASSES

After the "Local General Spot News Reporting" award was discontinued, an indirect successor came into existence: In 1985 the "General News Reporting" Pulitzer Prize was created. This award group remained for the next five years. Then, in the early Nineties, it was renamed "Spot News Reporting." Another eight years later, the prize's title again was changed: from now on it was called "Breaking News Reporting."

6.1

General News Reporting Award

This new award category was defined as follows: "For a distinguished example of reporting within the newspaper's area of circulation that meets the daily challenge of journalism such as spot news reporting or consistent beat coverage."1 The jurors were advised by the Board to list "three nominations for the prize... in alphabetical order by newspaper," and to "supply a brief statement as to why the jury believes hat this particular entry deserves to receive the Pulitzer Prize in this category. It is not a part of the jury's charge to offer its preferences among its three nominees."2 The jury of this award category assembled for the first time in the spring of 1985. One of the entries on its final list was written by Jonathan Kaufman of the Boston Globe. His work, in the opinion of the jurors, "displayed a rare example of reporting on the positive side of urban life. He captured the spirit of voluntarism and found the key individuals who make neigborhoods work." The staff of the Independent Record of Helena, Montana, had done "an extraordinary job by a small newspaper of covering virtually every angle of a spot news story... The coverage displayed planning, good reporting, writing, photography and graphics." Thomas Turcol of the Virginian-Pilot and Ledger-Star from Norfolk was the third nominee. "This is a classic example of the way a beat should be covered," the jury said, he "uncovered a condition that had existed for a decade before he took over the beat."-5 The Pulitzer Prize Board voted in favor of Thomas A. Turcol of the Virginian-Pilot and Ledger-Star "for City Hall coverage which exposed the corruption of a local economic development official.'"* In 1986 it was Edna Buchanan of the Miami Herald who was mentioned first on the jury's list. "This is exactly what police beat coverage ought to be," the jury report said, "Edna Buchanan is a versatile and sensational writer and reporter." The Dallas Morning News staff, another nominee, had "reported the crash of Delta Flight 191 in an amazingly comprehensive, compelling, yet respectful way - from the most complicated and technical aspects of weather and aerodynamics to the sorrowful impact of sudden and inexplicable death on the lives of the people it affected." The jury also recommended the Philadelphia Inquirer staff. "The committee was impressed with the breadth of reporting on this major spot news story," the jurors stated, "the Inquirer not only told what happened,

1 2 3 4

Quoted from the Pulitzer Prize Journalism Entry Form, 1985. Quoted from the Pulitzer Prize Nominating Jury Report Form, 1985. General News Reporting Jury Report, March 6, 1985, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes 1917-1991, New York 1991, p. 15.

110

it consistently and comprehensively explained why."5 The award was bestowed on Edna Buchanan of the Miami Herald "for her versatile and consistently excellent police beat reporting."6 Two staff entries were among the finalists in 1987. The Acron Beacon Journal, according to the jurors, "took an event of tremendous impact on its readers - the attempted buyout of Goodyear - and turned it into a textbook example of a major local spot/beat news story. The staff stayed relentlessly on top of daily events in a complex story of Wall Street intrigue, an iconoclastic tycoon, the city's biggest company and a community's fears for its future." Next on the list was the Orange County Register staff from California for a local air disaster reporting, "covered in detail, explained graphically, presented effectively and all told in human terms." John Woestendiek of the Philadelphia Inquirer was praised by the jurors for "a story in the best traditions of beat reporting. It started with a tip... and mushroomed into more than one-hundred interviews and countless hours of basic beat digging that resulted in a new trial for a convicted murderer."7 The winner was the Acron Beacon Journal "for its coverage... of the attempted takeover of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. by a European financier."8 In 1988 there were four finalists, three of them staff entries. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution was selected for its reporting of an Atlanta prison riot while the Charlotte Observer was chosen for "an example of persistent and recourceful investigation that drew upon years of expertise." Sam Stanton of the Arizona Republic was praised for "an example of superb beat reporting that produced nationally important results." Finally, the jury selected the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune, Massachusetts, for "a shocking report, compellingly written, by which a small newspaper brought about an important statewide change."9 This time the Board split the award. One of the winners was the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune "for an investigation that revealed serious flaws in the Massachusetts prison furlough system." The other winner was not mentioned by the jury. It was the staff of the Alabama Journal of Montgomery "for its compelling investigation of the state's unusually high infant-mortality rate, which prompted legislation to combat the problem."10 In the following year, 1989, there came up another different opinion between the jury and the Board. Nancy Badertscher of the Gwinnett Daily News impressed the jury "with her ability to overcome official resistance and obtain significant public records against the rigors of meeting a daily deadline in her county government beat." The Billings Gazette news staff of Montana had presented "an outstanding example of what a small local newspaper can do when faced with a national story - last summer's huge forest fires in the West." Justin Gillis and Lisa Getter of the Miami Herald had realized "persistent, accurate and effective reporting and writing about Dade County's first Hispanic county manager."11 None of these finalists on the jury report impressed the Pulitzer Prize Board, who gave the award to the Louisville Courier-Journal staff "for its exemplary initial coverage of a bus crash that claimed twenty-seven lives and its subsequent thorough and effective examination of the causes and implications of the tragedy."12 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

General News Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1986, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 15. General News Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1987, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 15. General News Reporting Jury Report, March 2, 1988, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 15. General News Reporting Jury Report, March 1,1989, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 15 f.

111 All of the three finalists of the 1990 competition were staff entries. The Roanoke Times and World-News had covered a United Mine Workers Strike, "an effort distinguished by its depth and breadth, its clarity and balance..." The entry of the San Jose Mercury News of California was praised by the jurors for the "coverage of the San Francisco earthquake..., marked by its responsibility, its completeness and its detail." The South Carolina newspaper Columbia State was third on the jury's list. The paper's "coverage of Hurricane Hugo had energy," the jury report states, "from headlines to taglines it was consistently compelling..."13 This time the Pulitzer Prize Board picked one of the three nominations. The winner was the San Jose Mercury News staff "for its detailed coverage of the... Bay Area earthquake and its aftermath" in the October of the preceding year.14 This was the last time the "General News Reporting" award was bestowed.

6.2

Spot News Reporting Award

This new Pulitzer Prize category was established in 1991, and it had this definition: "For a distinguished example of local reporting of spot news."15 When the jury of this award group met in March of that year, it selected three finalists, all of them staff entries. The "spot coverage of the Northwest Airlines collision by the Detroit News Staff," the jury report says, "reached or exceeded Pulitzer standards on all counts: Alertness..., resourcefulness..., quality of writing." The Miami Herald had placed an exhibit which contained a series of articles on a complicated constellation. The stories dealt with a self-proclaimed son of God who founded and commanded a religious organization called the Nation of Yahweh. "The Herald's entry," the jurors stated, "was the best written" one of the applications. New York Newsday was represented by a series called "A Lover's Rage." "In the spot context, it was as close to perfect coverage as a newspaper can muster," the jury said.1*' The Board bestowed the prize on the Miami Herald staff "for stories profiling a local cult leader, his followers, and their links to several area murders."17 Staff entries were the dominating factor in the 1992 award competition, too. The staff of New York Newsday came on the final list for "a stunning achievement of deadline work. It couldn't have been better even if written a week later. Well-edited with no duplication," the jury report states. The Philadelphia Inquirer had presented an exhibit of a helicopter crash in a local schoolyard. The accident, according to the jury, "encapsulates what (the) story is about - every parent's nightmare." Third staff entry on the final list was of the Vineyard Gazette of Edgartown, Massachusetts. Its "reporting truely serves the needs of the community," the jurors said, "great flavor and context under heavily adverse conditions. This was coverage that provided service to a readership that needed it," the report concludes.1** The Pulitzer Prize was awarded to the New York Newsday staff "for coverage of a midnight subway derailment in Manhattan that left five passengers dead and more than two-hundred injured. "^

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

General News Reporting Jury Report, March 7, 1990, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 16. Quoted from the Pulitzer Prize Journalism Entry Form, 1991. Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 5,1991, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 16. Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 3, 1992, p. 1. Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1992, p. 1.

112 In 1993 the jury selected, among two others, an entry by the Los Angeles Times about the second day of riots in the city. The "coverage was incredibly strong," the jurors stated, "there was a good mix of news stories and color sidebars that covered the extreme complexity of the events... There was terrific street reporting." The Miami Herald had entered "several emotionally moving stories about a child born without a brain. A very high level of reporting and writing was sustained over several days. Particularly impressive was the clarity of the writing and reporting on complex scientific and ethical questions," the jury report says. The entry of the Spokane Spokesman-Review from the state of Washington dealt with fugitive battles of U.S. Marshals and an armed white separatist. This achievement was called by the jury an "extremely strong effort by a medium-sized newspaper."20 The Board voted in favor of the Los Angeles Times "for balanced, comprehensive penetrating coverage under deadline pressure of the second, most destructive day of the Los Angeles riots" in the year before.21 The Los Angeles Times was also represented on the jury's shortlist of 1994 for its "coverage of... the Southland fires... Its range, depth and immediacy were remarkable... The writing was extraordinary," the jurors remarked. Robert D. McFadden of the New York Times was the only single journalist on the jury's list of proposals. His writing was praised as "his ability to shape a maze of facts, anecdotes and questions into a masterful narrative... This entry represents an extraordinary individual effort," the report states, "it stands out for its range and depth and humanity." There was a second entry of the New York Times, produced by its staff, about of the bombing of the World Trade Center Towers in the year before. "Although lots of questions remained unanswered," the jurors said, "readers of the New York Times... purely felt comforted by the comprehensiveness of the report that the newspaper delivered."22 The Board members decided that the prize was awarded to the New York Times staff "for its comprehensive coverage of the bombing of Manhattan's World Trade Center."23 In 1995, again, three staff entries made it on the jury's final list of proposals. The staff of the Los Angeles Times had covered one of the largest natural disasters in the history of the country. "Both the scope and the tenor of the devastation were reflected in the details gathered by reporters under conditions that were personally difficult and professionally challenging," the jurors said. The New York Times was represented on the list for its coverage of the city's police department. "The reporting was remarkable," the jury report states, "for its telling detail and its investigative depth, especially given the difficulties inherent in obtaining information about corrupt cops." It was the Rocky Mountain News from Denver that reached third place on the shortlist. "The paper overcame major logistical obstacles in its aggressive and sure-footed" coverage of a confusing, deadly wildfire.24 The winner of this award category was the Los Angeles Times staff "for its reporting... of the chaos and devastation in the aftermath of the Northridge earthquake" from the previous year.2^ The jurors of 1996 had two staff entries and one single exhibit on their list. Robert McFadden of the New York Times, in the eyes of the jurors, represented "a tradition that has been sadly lost on many newspapers, that of the prose craftsman who can create 20 21 22 23 24 25

Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 2, 1993, p. 1. Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 13, 1993, p. 1. Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 1, 1994, p. 1. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1994, p. 1. Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 7, 1995, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 18, 1995, p. 2.

113

order out of a chaotic flow of facts, with only minutes to spare. The breadth of the material, the excellence of the writing and the grace under pressure fulfill... the test of distinguished local reporting of spot news." The Eagle-Tribune of Lawrence, Massachusetts, had "a classic spot news story: a boiler explodes sending a textile mill up in flames... In hundreds of inches of deadline reporting, there is very little repetition and a surprising amount of gripping writing," the report says. Disney's purchase of Capital Cities/ABC Inc. was covered by the Los Angeles Times. The paper's "comprehensive 15story report - detailed, insightful and literate" - was called by the jury "a distinguished example of local reporting of spot news."26 The Board selected the entry by Robert D. McFadden of the New York Times "for his highly skilled writing and reporting on deadline."27 All of the three finalists in 1997 were staff entries. Newsday had covered the crash of a TWA flight. The paper, according to the jury report, "demonstrated reportorial aggressiveness, with staffers moving to the szenes of action, but also a compassion for the families that resonated through coverage. (The) reporting was thorough, and the narrative authoritative, people-driven and compelling." A Philadelphia Inquirer entry contained the story of an armed confrontation between police and a philanthropist following a murder at his estate. The coverage was called "an extraordinary case of authoritative writing and the reemergence of the strong narrative form in American journalism." The staff of the St. Petersburg Times had covered violence in the city which "showed matured judgment that insured clear, balanced and thorough reporting."28 The Pulitzer Prize was given to Newsday "for its enterprising coverage of the crash of TWA Flight 800 and its aftermath."29 This was the last time the "Spot News Reporting" award was bestowed.

6.3

Breaking News Reporting Award

This new prize category was established in 1998 and had the following description: "For a distinguished example of local reporting of breaking news."·*0 When the jurors of this award met in March of that year, they placed two single and one staff entry on their list. John Dennis Harrigan of the Colebrook News and Sentinel from New Hampshire was one of the single journalists. "With his newspaper office a crime scene," the jurors wrote, "publisher Harrigan quickly pieced together a story on the deaths of his editor and three other friends. He then rearranged his front page to reflect the story and photographs for next day's publication." Mike McAlary of the New York Daily News was chosen for his "deadline coverage of the story of a Haitian immigrant brutalized by four Brooklyn police officers." The Los Angeles Times staff, in its entry, "explained the tragic intersection of news and entertainment and news as entertainment in its outstanding coverage of a botched bank robbery... On deadline," the jury report states, "the Times gave a full and rich account of the 'actors' - the gunmen, the police, the victims and innocent bystanders."31 The Pulitzer Prize Board was most impressed by this exhibit and so the 26 27 28 29 30 31

Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 5,1996, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 9, 1996, p. 2. Spot News Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1997, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1997, p. 1. Quoted from the Pulitzer Prize Journalism Entry Form, 1998. Breaking News Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1998, pp. 1 ff.

114

award was bestowed on the Los Angeles Times staff "for its comprehensive coverage of a botched bank robbery and subsequent police shoot-out in North Hollywood."32 In 1999 the three jury favorites came from staff entries. The Hartford Courant from Connecticut was on the list for its "coverage of the lottery worker who went on a deadly rampage.... The presentation is clear, restrained where necessary and inviting throughout." Another newspaper, the Jonesboro Sun from Arkansas, was selected for its reporting on a shooting at a local middle school in which two boys killed a teacher and four classmates. "It took extraordinary courage in that community," the jury stated, "to name the two suspects." It took courage to be aggressive in the reporting." An exhibit by the Miami Herald, third on the list, covered a twelve-year-old boy's electrocution at a county bus shelter. The reporters of the newspaper, according to the jury, "demonstrated that breaking news can be the launch pad for great journalism that can be done in a timely and urgent fashion."33 The prize was awarded to the Hartford Courant staff "for its clear and detailed coverage of a shooting rampage in which a state lottery worker killed four supervisors then himself."34 The jurors in 2000 also preferred the entries of newspaper staffs. The Denver Post, as the jury said, had "distinguished itself by maintaining control over a complex, emotional and confusing story. The stories were written carefully and with balance, yet they conveyed the tragedy and emotions of the event. The mainbars were comprehensive and well-written, telling readers what they needed to know first." The News and Observer from Raleigh, North Carolina, had "provided its readers with crucial information about Hurricane Floyd, information that went beyond the norm of a weather disaster." It was the Oregonian of Portland that "provided literate, comprehensive coverage of a story that took one unpredictable turn after another... The paper never lost sight of the need to pull the whole story together," it is told in the jury report.35 The Pulitzer Prize Board decided in favor of the Denver Post staff "for its clear and balanced coverage of the student massacre at Columbine High School" in the previous year.36

32 33 34 35 36

Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 14, 1998, p. 1. Breaking News Reporting Jury Report, March 3, 1999, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1999, p. 1. Breaking News Reporting Jury Report, March 1, 2000, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 10, 2000, p. 1.

115 7.

PRIZES FOR RECHERCHE JOURNALISM EFFORTS

When in the early Fifties a former local reporting award category was divided into two separate groups, one of them focused on reporting without any time pressure. This new so-called "Local Reporting, No Edition Time" category intended to encourage thorough description and analyses of complex facts. A little more than a decade later, this prize was renamed "Local Investigative Specialized Reporting." After another decade, the final title "Investigative Reporting" was adopted for this award category.

7.1

Local Reporting, No Edition Time Award

In 1953, when this award was established, the prize definition was as follows: "For a distinguished example of local reporting in a United States newspaper, published daily, Sunday or at least once a week, during the year, in which the pressure of edition time is not a factor, written in the form of a single article or a series, due consideration be given to the initiative and resourcefulness and to the constructive purpose of the writer."1 The jurors who assembled in the spring of 1953 to select the entries of this award category picked "top five reporting jobs" in alphabetical order as follows: 1. Robert Z. Hall of the San Francisco Call-Bulletin who "wrote a vivid story;" Michael Harris of the San Francisco Chronicle had submitted "an excellent and documented reporting of public business conducted behind closed doors;" Edward J. Mowery of the New York World-Telegram and Sun, according to the jury, "showed painstaking work over a period of years culminating in dramatic reversal of judgment" within the preceding year; Richard J. Roth of the Brooklyn Eagle came into a scandal "long before official investigation;" Eden Wright of the Chicago Daily News was represented by a story showing "strong human interest."2 The Advisory Board decided in favor of Edward J. Mowery of the New York World-Telegram and Sun "for his reporting of the facts which brought vindication and freedom to Louis Hoffner"^ who had stayed in prison for twelve years. In 1954 the Board members decided that the Pulitzer Prize in the Local Reporting, No Edition Time category should go to Alvin Scott McCoy of the Kansas City Star from Missouri, "for a series of exclusive stories which led to the resignation under fire of C. Wesley Roberts as Republican National Chairman."4 Since the jury report of that year is not available it is impossible to reconstruct the decision-making process of the jurors. The jury in 1955 submitted five recommendations to the Advisory Board, among them "two leading" candidates. "Our recommendations for the actual prize," the jurors said in their report, was "Roland Kenneth Towery... of the Cuero Daily Record... Mr. Towery's work fully qualifies under the Pulitzer award conditions. It was marked by initiative, resourcefulness and certainly was of a highly constructive nature. Professional newsmen of high skills perhaps might question the writing ability or the technical organization of the stories, but as to the basic reporting skill there can be no argument. Just a step behind, in 1 Quoted from the Pulitzer Prize Journalism Entry Form, 1953. 2 Local Reporting, No Edition Time Jury Report, undated (March 1953), p. 1. 3 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes 1917-1991, New York 1991, p. 16.

4 Ibid.

116 our judgment," the jury report states, "is the submission in behalf of Anthony Lewis" of the Washington Daily News from the District of Columbia. Third rank went to Neil A. Addington of the Santa Fe New Mexican, fourth place went to Carl Baldwin of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and fifth was Walter Carroll of Syracuse Post-Standard.5 The award was bestowed on Roland Kenneth Towery of the Cuero Record from Texas "for his series of articles exclusively exposing a scandal in the administration of the Veterans' Land Program in Texas."6 Five finalists also went onto the jury's report in 1956: Daniel A. Campbell of the St. Petersburg Independent for "reporting on what goes on in the school room;" Mary Annette Grice of the Wichita Beacon from Kansas for a series on "The Black Market Baby Racket;" the New York Post was mentioned third for an entry called "Incident in Central Park;" a story by John Newhouse of the Wisconsin State Journal from Madison dealt with "juvenile delinquincy in a midwest American city." Lee Pitt of the Mirror News from Los Angeles had done "an outstanding job on the Charles E. Taylor story."7 This time the Board did not accept any of the five proposals but gave the award to Arthur J. Daley of the New York Times "for his outstanding coverage and commentary on the world of sports..."8 The jury report of 1957 was extremely short and only contained this information: "We recommend that prizes... be given to George Thiem of the Chicago Daily News... and Wallace Turner and William Lambert of the Portland Oregonian."9 This proposal was accepted only in part by the Board. The Pulitzer Prize was given to Wallace Turner and William Lambert of the Portland Oregonian "for their expose of vice and corruption in Portland involving some municipal officials and officers of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Western Conference."10 In 1958 the jury report contained the names of five finalists, as follows: 1. George Beveridge of the Washington Star for a series "on urban problems of Washington;" 2. Mary Carter Winter of the Augusta Chronicle from Georgia for a "series on mental health and rehabilitation;" 3. Selig Greenberg of the Providence Journal-Bulletin from Rhode Island for a feature called "I Went Insane for Ten Hours;" 4. John Seigenthaler of the Nashville Tennessean for a "series exposing violence in labor unions;" 5. L. W. Burns and John G. Green of the Ohio newspaper Portsmouth Times for "coverage of telephone strike in southeastern Ohio."11 The award went to the first-ranking applicant, George Beveridge of the Washington Star, "for his excellent and thought-provoking series, 'Metro, City of Tomorrow,' describing in depth the urban problems of Washington, D.C."12 The jurors in 1959 selected four candidates in the following order: 1. John Harold Brislin of the Scranton Tribune from Pennsylvania for a series "done at extreme personal danger and in the best traditions of newspapering;" 2. Peter Braestrup and Don Hogan of the New York Herald-Tribune for a "series exposing racketeering in the New York garment industry;" 3. George N. Allen of the New York World Telegram and Sun "for an 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Local Reporting, No Edition Time Jury Report, March 15, 1955, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 16. Local Reporting, No Edition Time Jury Report, undated (March 1956), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 16. Local Reporting, No Edition Time Jury Report, undated (March 1957), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 16. Local Reporting, No Edition Time Jury Report, undated (March 1958), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 16.

117

exceedingly able presentation of appalling conditions in the city school system;" 4. Jerry Candela of the Erie Times-News from Pennsylvania "for fearless exposure of vote frauds that resulted in the arrest of four members of the district election board."13 The winner was John H. Brislin of the Scranton Tribune and the Scrantonian "for displaying courage, initiative, and resourcefulness in his effective four-year campaign to halt labor violence in his home city."14 In 1960 the jurors, again, placed five finalists on their report as follows: 1. Jean Sharley of the Detroit Free Press was selected for a series of articles on "Women in Trouble;" 2. Sandy Smith and Thomas Powers of the Chicago Tribune were represented by articles "exposing payroll frauds in Chicago;" 3. Edmund Winston Hughes of the Atlanta Journal had done "an outstanding expose of landlord greed;" 4. Eve Edstrom of the Washington Post and Times Herald had covered "detailing aspects of solicitation for charity funds;" 5. Miriam Ottenberg of the Washington Evening Star had reported about a very special problem in the nation's capital.15 The Advisory Board decided in favor of the journalist on fifth rank. So Miriam Ottenberg of the Washington Evening Star won the award "for a series of seven articles exposing a used-car racket in Washington, D.C., that victimized many unwary buyers."16 The jurors of 1961 "agreed unanimously" on a series by Edgar May of the Buffalo Evening News on problems of the welfare service system. Woody Klein of the New York World Telegram and Sun came on second rank for a series on Puerto Rican migration to New York City. Third place went to Donald M. Seaver of the Charlotte Observer from North Carolina for his coverage of a statewide campaign for better hospital facilities. Fourth was an exhibit by Desmond Stone and Jack W. Germond of the Rochester TimesUnion about the situation of the blacks in Rochester, N.Y. Finally, Robert Hermann and Kyle Vance of the Louisville Courier-Journal earned rank five for articles on fraud in Kentucky on leasing dump trucks from a private firm.17 Edgar May of the Buffalo Evening News was the winner "for his series of articles on New York State's public welfare services entitled, Our Costly Dilemma.'"18 The jury members in 1962 decided that the Pulitzer Prize should go to George W. Bliss of the Chicago Tribune "for his investigatory report on scandals in the Metropolitan Sanitary District." Haynes Johnson of the Washington Star came second for a series on "The Negro in Washington." An exhibit about the Delaware River Water Supply Project by Woodie Fitchette and James Heavey of the Evening Press from Binghamton, New York, was ranked third. Also mentioned on the jury's list were exhibits by Hugh Mulligan of the Associated Press dealing with the aged in New York City, and a special reporting team of United Press International "for a feature on the way an airplane tragedy affected a small town."1^ The Board accepted the jury's proposal, and so George W. Bliss of the Chicago Tribune won the award "for his initiative in uncovering scandals in the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, with resultant remedial action."20 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Local Reporting, No Edition Time Jury Report, undated (March 1959), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 17. Local Reporting, No Edition Time Jury Report, undated (March I960), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 17. Local Reporting, No Edition Time Jury Report, undated (March 1961), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 17. Local Reporting, No Edition Time Jury Report, March 9,1962, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 17.

118 In 1963 the jury on Local Reporting, No Edition Time felt that Oscar Griffin Jr. of the Pecos Independent deserved "to be recognized in first place in some Pulitzer category." The jurors added: "We do not feel that the handling of the break on the Billie Sol Estes story quite fits into our category and tried to get the Public Service jury to accept it," but from there it returned to the Local Reporting, No Edition Time jurors. In case that the Griffin exhibit could not be accepted by the Board they alternatively had another firstrank entry, entered by Newton H. Fulbright of the New York Herald-Tribune. Others for runner-up consideration were, in order of preference: Gerald D. Sturges and Herbert A. Michelson of the Oakland Tribune, Lois Wille of the Chicago Daily News, and Miriam Ottenberg of the Washington Evening Star.21 The Board voted in favor of Oscar Griffin Jr. of the Pecos Independent and Enterprise from Texas who "initiated the exposure of the Billie Sol Estes scandal and thereby brought a major fraud on the United States government to national attention with resultant investigation, prosecution and conviction of Estes."22

7.2

Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Award

When in 1964 the former "Local Reporting, No Edition Time" award category was discontinued it was succeeded by a new one defined as follows: "For a distinguished example of local investigative or other specialized reporting, preferably by an individual or team, presented as a single article or series, giving prime consideration to initiative, resourcefulness, research and high quality of writing."23 It was the first time a Pulitzer Prize contained the term of investigative reporting. When the jury of this new award group assembled in the spring of 1964 it recommended "two prizes in this category because of the merit of the two entries judged 'first' and because it deadlocked in deciding between the two." They were the Philadelphia Bulletin and the Washington Daily News. The exhibit of the Philadelphia Bulletin, which was presented by two journalists and a photographer, was called "an outstanding team effort, showing resourcefulness and initiative and particularly fine coordination of photography with text." The entry by Samuel A. Stafford of the Washington Daily News was praised by the jurors as "an outstanding example of investigative reporting in a difficult field where facts are hard to find and often lost in bureaucratic procedures. The writing is excellent, concise and well-organized." Two other entries were called worthy of consideration by the Board: The Chicago Daily News and the Hartford Times-^ The Advisory Board voted in favor of James V. Magee, Albert V. Gaudiosi and Frederick A. Meyer of the Philadelphia Bulletin "for their expose of numbers racket operations with police collusion in South Philadelphia, which resulted in arrests and a cleanup of the police department."25 The jurors of 1965 recommended that the winner should be chosen from one of three entries, they regarded "all three as equally meritorious." In alphabetical order by names the three finalists were: Gene Goltz of the Houston Post: "This is a classic case of a newspaper reporter pursuing the public's right to know... He insisted on that right by dig21 22 23 24 25

Local Reporting, No Edition Time Jury Report, March 7,1963, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 17. Quoted from the Pulitzer Prize Journalism Entry Form, 1964. Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 6, 1964, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 17.

119

ging and questioning, and at the end his alertness and resourcefulness won a significant victory for the people of Pasadena." Harry J. Karafin and Joseph C. Goulden Jr. of the Philadelphia Inquirer in their entry had exposed "the flaws and corruption in the most basic level of the judicial system in the state of Pennsylvania." Jack Mabley of the Chicago American was represented among the finalists with an "expose of irregularities in the Illinois state government."26 The winner was Gene Goltz of the Houston Post "for his expose of government corruption in Pasadena, Texas, which resulted in widespread reforms."27 In the following year, 1966, the jury came up with a divided vote. Three of the five jurors recommended that the Pulitzer Prize in this field should go to Joseph Daughen of the Philadelphia Bulletin "for his painstaking, perceptive and massive report of the Negro citizen in Philadelphia." The other two jurors dissented from this finding, voting first place, instead, to John A. Frasca of the Tampa Tribune "for his investigation of two holdups, a piece of outstanding journalistic initiative." Strongly in the juror's considerations right up to the final votes was an entry by Richard H. Levine of the Baltimore Sun for his "effective reporting which resulted in sweeping changes in the procedures and command of the Baltimore police department."28 For the Board it was no question that the award went to John Anthony Frasca of the Florida newspaper Tampa Tribune "for his investigation and reporting of two robberies that resulted in the freeing of an innocent man."29 In 1967 the jurors placed Gene Miller of the Miami Herald first on their list. He had "developed a perception of a problem of injustice that was brought to public knowledge only through persistent reporting - a great example of personal journalism." Second choice was Michael Harris of the San Francisco Chronicle. He had covered an assessors' scandal in his home town, "it was a story with tremendous impact throughout California. It resulted in a chain reaction of indictments in other cities," the jury report states. Third rank went to Dewey L. Turner of the DeKalb Tribune from Georgia. He had "defied obstacles of the county political power structure to ferret out and publish... names of special sheriff deputies." Other finalists were: Monroe Campbell of the Jacksonville Journal from Florida, Dale Wittner of the Tucson Daily Citizen from Arizona, and Stanley W. Penn and Monroe W. Karmin of the Wall Street Journal?0 Gene Miller of the Miami Herald received the award, his "initiative and investigative reporting helped to free two persons wrongfully convicted of murder."31 Six finalists can be found on the jury's list of 1968, they were in the order indicated: 1. Detroit Free Press "for looking back to take an overview of its own reportorial performance during a tragic social upheaval;" 2. Joseph Strickland of the Detroit News for "locating a key witness" after motel slayings; 3. Newsday for "investigation of Town of Islip public officials who profited personally and handsomely from land and zoning transactions;" 4. St. Louis Globe-Democrat for investigation into the activities of the St. Louis Steamfitters' Union re welfare funds; 5. J. Anthony Lukas of the New York Times represented "detailed, accurate reporting with a powerful social impact;" 6. The Charlotte Observer was praised for reporting about the punishments of epileptics in North 26 27 28 29 30 31

Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 5, 1965, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 17. Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1966, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 17. Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 9, 1967, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 17.

120

Carolina.32 The Board picked the entry placed fifth by the jurors, and J. Anthony Lukas of the New York Times was the winner "for the social document he wrote in his investigation of the life and the murder of Linda Fitzpatrick."33 In 1969, again, six finalists were chosen by the jury, they were in the order of choice: 1. Albert L. Delugach and Denny Walsh of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. "This is a superlative job of careful and detailed reporting in a jungle of misdeeds," the jury report states. 2. Dale Huffman and John McMillan of the Dayton Daily News from Ohio had reached "a very high rank in investigative reporting." 3. The staff members of the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal from Texas had shown "enterprise, determination and discretion" in their work. 4. Philip Meyer of Knight Newspapers had "pioneered in the development of what will someday be a tremendously important reportorial tool." 5. The entry by Clare Wooten Crawford of the Washington Daily News was praised as a "fine example of public service in uncovering a misapplication of justice." 6. Bernard Bookbinder et al. of Newsday from Long Island delivered "a superb example of comprehensive reporting."34 Albert L. Delugach and Denny Walsh of the St. Louis GlobeDemocrat won the award "for their campaign against fraud and abuse of power within the St. Louis Steamfitters Union."35 The jurors in 1970 selected six finalists, too. First rank went to Ron Kessler of the Wall Street Journal. The jury was impressed by his "fact-filled presentation" and the "straightforward style." Second place went to Harold Eugene Martin of the Montgomery Advertiser and Alabama Journal for an expose of misusing prisoners. Third were Ed Pound and Aude Yakstis of the Alton Telegraph from Illinois for an investigation of the state's Supreme Court. Fourth place went to Bernard Izes and Jon Katz of the Atlantic City Press from New Jersey for an investigation on municipal payroll padding. Lawrence G. Weiss et al. of the Denver Post were placed fifth for a story about the University of Colorado campus. Sixth was Tony Tucci of the Cleveland Press for an investigation of court-fixing charges.36 The Pulitzer Prize was bestowed on Harold Eugene Martin of the Montgomery Advertiser and Alabama Journal, "for his exposo of a commercial scheme for using Alabama prisoners for drug experimentation and obtaining blood plasma from them."37 In 1971 the following recommendations were made in order of the jury's rating: 1. Gene Hunter of the Honolulu Advertiser for his "initiative and personal courage in attacking a serious local problem" in Hawaii. 2. William Jones of the Chicago Tribune had "uncovered for his readers corrupt companies handling ambulance cases often on a pay or no go basis." 3. Mark Stuart and George James of the Record from Hackensack, New Jersey, for exploring the problems of child abuse. 4. David Bumham of the New York Times for exposure of "the kind and extent of police pay-offs in New York City." 5. Patrick R. Cullen of the Palm Beach Post from Florida for digging "into the history of Florida's environmental problems."38 The Advisory Board voted in favor of the entry placed second. So William Jones of the Chicago Tribune won the prize "for exposing collusion between police and some of Chicago's largest private ambulance companies to restrict service in low income areas, leading to major reforms."39 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 8, 1968, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 17. Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, undated (March 1969), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 18. Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 9,1970, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 18. Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 5,1971, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 18.

121

The jury members of 1972 selected five finalists, too. They placed first the Boston Globe spotlight team for a series about problems in two Massachusetts communities. Second was James Treloar of the Detroit News for a series on ecology aspects. Rank three came to Paul Neely, Marcia McQuern and John Parker of the Riverside PressEnterprise from California for a series about the law school dean of the local university. Fourth place was earned by Edward P. Whelan, Richard C. Widman and William A. Wynne of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer for a series on conditions in a state hospital. An entry by Kent Pollock of the Philadelphia Inquirer containing an investigation of the local police department came fifth.40 The Board accepted the exhibit placed first by the jurors but did not give the award just to the team. Instead, the prize went to Timothy Leland, Gerard M. O'Neill, Stephen A. Kurkjian and Ann DeSantis of the Boston Globe "for their exposure of widespread corruption in Somerville, Massachusetts."41 The jury report of 1973 was quite short. Recommending two finalists for the award it only contains the following details: "First place - Sun Newspapers of Omaha for their enterprise in utilizing information available through provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 to discover and disclose the wealth of a charitable organization... Second place William Heffernan, Buffalo Courier-Express, for his determined and effective disclosure of irregularities in one area of local government after another."42 In a note it is also said that "the reason for only two choices by this jury is that its members could not agree on any other exhibit" for inclusion in the report.43 The Advisory Board gave the Pulitzer Prize to the Sun Newspapers of Omaha "for uncovering the large financial resources of Boys Town, Nebraska, leading to reforms in this charitable organization's solicitation and use of funds contributed by the public."44 In 1974 the jurors wished "to pay tribute to the high calibre of entries from smaller and middle-size newspapers." But on the list of finalists most of the entries came from papers of high circulation, they were: 1. William Sherman of the New York Daily News about abuse of the Medicaid program; 2. A Boston Globe team exhibit about organized crime; 3. Robert Greene et al. from Newsday for a series on the heroin trail; 4. Joseph Daughen of the Philadelphia Bulletin; 5. James Steele and Donald Barlett of the Philadelphia Inquirer, 6. Michael Baxter and James Savage of the Miami Herald.45 The winner was William Sherman of the New York Daily News "for his resourceful investigative reporting in the exposure of extreme abuse of the New York Medicaid program."4*' Things were a little complicated in 1975. The jury placed first an entry in behalf of Edward T. Pound and Thomas J. Moore of the Chicago Sun-Times for their stories on voting machine firm payoffs and land dealings. Second rank went to Gary H. Deckelnick and Gary E. Schoening of the Asbury Park Press from New Jersey for presenting "a case study of how the public has benefited from the new public consciousness aroused by Watergate." Third came John L. Hess of the New York Times for an investigation into the nursing home industry. In an additional "procedural explanation" the jurors said: "The unanimous first choice of entries filed in this category was... the Indianapolis Star police corruption investigative series. This entry was cross-field in the Public Service category," 40 Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 10, 1972, p. 1. 41 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 18. 42 Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 9, 1973, p. 1.

43 Ibid. 44 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 18. 45 Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 8, 1974, pp. 1 f. 46 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p, 18.

122 and should be discussed there.47 But obviously the exhibit returned to the Local Investigative Specialized Reporting jury, and finally it was chosen by the Board as winner "for its disclosures of local police corruption and dilatory law enforcement, resulting in a cleanup of both the Police Department and the Office of the County Prosecutor."48 In 1976 five exhibits went onto the jury's shortlist, all of them by newspaper staffs. The first ranking entry was by the Chicago Tribune for "a classic expose of conditions in two private hospitals." Second place was reached by the Charlotte Observer for investigations about telephone bills. Third rank was given to the Detroit Free Press for stories about released mental patients, four of them had been charged with murder. Fourth was an exhibit by the Sun-Bulletin from Morrow Bay, California, for disclosing activities of an oil company. The New York Daily News was placed fifth with its reporting about private child care agencies.49 The Board decided in favor of the Chicago Tribune's staff members "who uncovered widespread abuses in Federal housing programs in Chicago and exposed shocking conditions at two private Chicago hospitals."^ There were more than one-hundred and thirty entries in the category in 1977. Five of them came on the shortlist as follows: 1. Acel Moore and Wendell Rawls of the Philadelphia Inquirer for the coverage of conditions in a hospital for the mentally ill; 2. Hoag Levins of the Philadelphia Daily News for reporting about conditions in the Philadelphia General Hospital; 3. Mark Reutter and Steven M. Luxenberg of the Baltimore Sun for investigation of the Pallottine Fathers; 4. Marion A. Ellis and Howard Covington of the Charlotte Observer, 5. William Clements, Harlan Draeger and William Mooney of the Chicago Daily News. "The panelists found it difficult," the jury confessed, "to choose between the entries of the two Philadelphia newspapers... Regarding the panel's choice for first place, the members think it important to note that the investigation covered a murky area that is too little known."51 Thus, the award was bestowed on Acel Moore and Wendell L. Rawls Jr. of the Philadelphia Inquirer "for their reports on conditions in the Farview, Pennsylvania, State Hospital for the mentally ill."52 In 1978 the jury voted unanimously to recommend that the investigative reporting prize be awarded to Anthony R. Dolan of the Stamford Advocate from Connecticut. "In the jury's view," the report states, "Mr. Dolan's work was a remarkable example of thoroughness and persistence. He exposed widespread corruption... Mr. Dolan's work was superior in every measurement - origination..., thoroughness, and in carrying on in the face of known threats to his personal safety." The jury had two alternatives of equal merit: One was by Stan Swofford of the Greensboro Daily News from North Carolina, the other one was presented by the Detroit Free Press in behalf of Kathy Warbelow, Ellen Grzech and Bob Calverley.5·^ The Board accepted the jury's favorite, and Anthony R. Dolan of the Stamford Advocate "for a series on municipal corruption."54 As in several years before, the jury of 1979 exclusively placed group entries in its shortlist. They were in alphabetical order by newspapers: Chicago Sun-Times with an exhibit on public corruption; the Philadelphia Daily News had presented articles on drug abuses by doctors and pharmacists; the Philadelphia Inquirer had covered the Pennsyl47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 7, Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 18. Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 5, Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 18. Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 4, Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 18. Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 3, Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 18.

1975, pp. 1 f. 1976, pp. 1 f. 1977, p. 1. 1978, p. 1.

123

vania legislature, and the Pottsville Republican from Pennsylvania had uncovered organized crime. The articles of the Pottsville Republican show, as can be read in the jury report, "that a small newspaper with limited resources can exercise major influence for the public interest. (The) jurors were impressed by the ambitious scope of the investigation, its thoroughness and effective presentation."55 The Pulitzer Prize Board shared this opinion but the prize did not go to the newspaper itself. Gilbert M. Gaul and Elliot G. Jaspin of the Pottsville Republican were the winners "for stories on the destruction of the Blue Coal Company by men with ties to organized crime."56 In 1980 five entries went onto the jury's shortlist: The Boston Globe spotlight team was first for a several-months investigation that revealed a deliberating link between Boston state house officials and transit unions. The strongest candidate, next to the Boston Globe, was the Washington Post for its carefully documented charges of massive fraud in a Washington black self-help program. The most impressive investigative reporting entries from smaller newspaper were presented by the Nyack Journal-News from New York State, and by the Port Arthur News from Texas. Finally, the jury was also impressed by an exhibit by Newsday.5^ The Pulitzer Prize was bestowed on the Boston Globe spotlight team, consisting of Stephen A. Kurkjian, Alexander B. Hawes Jr., Nils Bruzelius, Joan Vennochi and Robert M. Porterfield "for articles on Boston's transit system."58 Three finalists were selected by the jurors in 1981. They came to the unanimous conclusion that Clark Hallas and Robert B. Lowe of the Arizona Daily Star should "be awarded the Pulitzer Prize... for their intense scrutiny of and determined presentation of highly controversial material... Moreover, the newspaper showed courage of the highest order in pursuing the subject in opposition to entrenched interests in Tucson and throughout the state," the jury report says. The committee found itself agreed that the teams of reporters of the Chicago Sun-Times and of the Miami Herald "had produced equally meritorious reports on two totally dissimilar subjects. Both were readable, attractively presented, and represented the needs of the reading public."59 The Pulitzer Prize Board accepted the jury's favorite, and the award went to Clark Hallas and Robert B. Lowe of the Arizona Daily Star "for their investigation of the University of Arizona Athletic Department."60 In 1982 Paul Henderson of the Seattle Times was the jury's "strong first choice for his persistent investigation which proved a convicted rapist innocent." Joel Brinkley of the Louisville Courier-Journal was the second choice for his "investigative series exposing abuses in the antiquated Kentucky coroner system." Sydney P. Freedberg and David Ashenfelter of the Detroit News reached third rank "for their expose of the U.S. Navy's coverup of circumstances surrounding the deaths of seamen on board ship."6! por the Board members it was no question that the jury's favorite should earn the award. Paul Henderson of the Seattle Times was made recipient of the Pulitzer Prize "for reporting which proved the innocence of a man convicted of rape."62 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 6, 1979, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 18. Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1980, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 18. Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 4,1981, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 18. Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 3,1982, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 19.

124

There were three finalists in 1983 in alphabetical order as follows: Donald C. Drake of the Philadelphia Inquirer was nominated for his coverage of problems of released mental patients. The story was praised by the jury as "a distinguished piece of reporting both at the human and public policy level." A team of the Louisville Courier-Journal was another finalist. The journalists had worked on illegal and dangerous operations in the coal industry. The reporting was called "thorough and consistently performed at a high professional level." Loretta Tofani of the Washington Post was third on the list. She had written a series on sexual assaults in a Maryland prison and she had done her work "in an atmosphere of great difficulty and reluctance."63 The Pulitzer Prize Board found this entry most impressing and bestowed the award on Loretta Tofani of the Washington Post "for her investigation of rape and sexual assault in the Prince George's County, Maryland, Detention Center."64 In 1984 the three favorites of the jury were: The Arizona Daily Star was the "unanimous first choice" for a "courageous investigation - against great obstacles - of gross mismanagement of an expensive and important weapons system involving Tucson's second largest employer." An exhibit by the Boston Globe was the jury's second choice "for a well-written, thorough and comprehensive inquiry into a serious local problem." The Seattle Times was placed third "for an unusual, imaginative and elegantly written account of the making of a Boeing jetliner."65 The award went to the entry ranking second: Kenneth J. Cooper, Joan Fitz Gerald, Jonathan Kaufman, Norman A. Lockman, Gary W. McMillan, Kirk Scharfenberg and David M. Wessel were the winners "for their series examining race relations in Boston."66

7.3

Investigative Reporting Award

The "Local Investigative Specialized Reporting" category was discontinued in 1985, and the award changed its name to "Investigative Reporting." This new prize group was defined as follows: "For a distinguished example of investigative reporting within a newspaper's area of circulation by an individual or team, presented as single article or series."6^ When the jurors of the new award category assembled in spring 1985 they selected the following three favorites: Mark J. Thompson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for research about helicopter accidents and their causes; William K. Marimow of the Philadelphia Inquirer for conducting a difficult investigation on aggressive police dogs; Lucy Morgan and Jack Reed of the St. Petersburg Times from Florida for investigating a county sheriffs hidden activities.68 The Pulitzer Prize Board decided to bestow a split award on two out of the three entries. One part of the award went to William K. Marimow of the Philadelphia Inquirer "for his revelation that city police dogs had attacked more than 350 people." The other part of the investigative reporting prize was given to Lucy Morgan and Jack Reed of the St. Petersburg Times "for their thorough re-

63 64 65 66 67 68

Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 9,1983, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 19. Local Investigative Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 7,1984, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 19. Quoted from the Pulitzer Prize Journalism Entry Form, 1985. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 6, 1985, p. 1.

125

porting on Pasco County Sheriff John Short, which revealed his department's corruption and led to his removal from office by voters."69 In 1986 an exhibit by Jim Henderson and Henry Lee Lucas of the Dallas TimesHerald was among the finalists for "an unusual investigative series." Jeffrey A. Marx and Michael M. York of the Kentucky newspaper Lexington Herald-Leader "told a complete, clear and compelling story of payoffs, pressure and cheating." Joel Kaplan and James Pratt of the Tennessean from Nashville had done a several-months investigation on a congressman who had sold his influence and became wealthy.7** The Pulitzer Prize Board bestowed the award on Jeffrey A. Marx and Michael M. York of the Lexington Herald-Leader "for their series 'Playing Above the Rules,' which exposed cash payoffs to University of Kentucky basketball players in violation of NCAA regulations and led to significant reforms."71 The jurors of 1987 had Terrence Poppa of a small Texas border newspaper, the El Paso Herald-Post, on their list for "covering the dangerous world of Mexican drug lords." Three reporters of the Philadelphia Inquirer were next on the jury's list for investigation about "the system-wide breakdown of justice in the Philadelphia court system." Gary Marx and John Wark of the Florida newspaper Orlando Sentinel were listed third for "tough reporting that documented the poor use and/or abuse of dollars collected by one of the nation's major charities."72 The prize was divided between two newspapers but only one of them can be found on the jury's list of proposals. One part of the award was given to Daniel R. Biddle, H. G. Bissinger and Fredric N. Tulsky of the Philadelphia Inquirer "for their series 'Disorder in the Court'" of their hometown. John Woestendiek, also from the Philadelphia Inquirer, won the second part of the prize "for outstanding prison beat reporting, which included proving the innocence of a man convicted of murder."73 In 1988 the jury's favorites were Tracy Thompson and Larry Copeland of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. The contents of their exhibit was "well researched, under difficult conditions." William Gaines, Ann Marie Lipinski and Dean Baquet of the Chicago Tribune were praised for "a model of municipal reporting." Carlton Smith and Tomas Guillen of the Seattle Times came on the list for "an impressive use of old-fashion footwork and modem hightech methodology."71* The Pulitzer Prize Board decided in favor of Dean P. Baquet, William C. Gaines and Ann Marie Lipinski of the Chicago Tribune "for their detailed reporting on the self-interest and waste that plague Chicago's City Council."75 Mary Bishop of the Roanoke Times and World News from Virginia was one of the three finalists in 1989 "for her sobering investigation" of problems in the state of Virginia. Bill Dedman of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution came on the list "for a carefully researched and well documented four-part series exposing racial discrimination in the mortgage leading practices of Atlanta's major financial institutions." Elsa Walsh and Benjamin Weiser of the Washington Post had done research on "secrecy in the court system."76 The winner of the investigative reporting prize was Bill Dedman of the Atlanta Journal 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 19. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 5,1986, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 19. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 3,1987, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 19. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 2, 1988, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 19. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 1, 1989, p. 1.

126 and Constitution "for his investigation of the racial discrimination practiced by lending institutions in Atlanta, reporting which led to significant reforms in those policies."77 In 1990 Olive Talley of the Dallas Morning News was among the finalists for an investigation disclosing the inadequate health care system in America's Federal prisons. Lou Kilzer and Chris Ison of the Star-Tribune from Minneapolis-St. Paul were praised for their detailed investigation of questionable fires in the area. An exhibit by the staff of the Lexington Herald-Leader from Kentucky was third on the jury's list of nominations for a series that examined local political abuses and their damaging effect on the country's public schools.78 The Pulitzer Prize Board selected Lou Kilzer and Chris Ison of the Star-Tribune "for reporting that exposed a network of local citizens who had links to members of the St. Paul fire department and who profited from fires, including some described by the fire department itself as being of suspicious origin."79 The three finalists of 1991 were led by Ray Herndon of the Dallas Times-Herald for persistent reporting that freed an innocent man serving a fifty-five-year prison sentence. Joseph T. Hallinan and Susan M. Headden of the Indianapolis Star in their exhibit "showed in a dramatic fashion how insurance companies and doctors profited from people's misery." Candy J. Cooper of the San Francisco Examiner was cited for reports revealing that the Oakland Police Department had routinely neglected to investigate rape charges, which prompted the reopening of more than two-hundred cases.80 The Pulitzer Prize was bestowed on Joseph T. Hallinan and Susan M. Headden of the Indianapolis Star "for their shocking series on medical malpractice in the state."81 In 1992 the jury placed first on its list an entry by two reporters of the Dallas Morning News. The newspaper had undertaken "a carefully planned and comprehensive state-wide look of police misconduct." The Greenville News from North Carolina was represented by an exhibit on financial abuses at a University of South Carolina foundation. Jennifer Hyman of the Democrat and Chronicle from Rochester, New York, had "exposed the secret ties between the C.I.A. and an institution of higher education in its community that adopted its curriculum and faculty recruitment to meet the agency's needs, even allowing unwanted 'security Checks' of its own officials."82 The Pulitzer Prize Board gave the award to Lorraine Adams and Dan F. Malone of the Dallas Morning News "for reporting that charged Texas police with extensive misconduct and abuses of power."83 The three finalists of 1993 were: Dave Davis and Ted Wendung of the Cleveland Plain Dealer for their series about victims of botched radiation therapy and lax regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other agencies. Terry Ganey, Michael D. Sorkin and Louis J. Rose of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch came next for investigations of corruption by a Missouri attorney general and a St. Louis chief prosecutor. James Heaney of the Buffalo News was placed third for stories that identified the major causes of the decline of Buffalo's older neighborhoods and proposed possible solutions.84 This time the Pulitzer Prize Board did not accept any of the jury's proposals. Instead, the award was bestowed on Jeff Brazil and Steve Berry of the Orlando Sentinel 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 19. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 6, 1990, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit, pp. 19 f. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 6, 1991, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 20. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1992, p. 1. Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1992, p. 2. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 3, 1993, p. 1.

127

from Florida "for exposing the unjust seizure of millions of dollars from motorists most of them minorities - by a sheriffs drug squad."85 In 1994 the jurors mentioned first in their report an exhibit by Dean Baquet and Jane Fritsch of the New York Times. The entry, according to the jury, was "a classic case of a newspaper identifying an important public issue - the mismanagement of the nation's largest nonprofit health insurer." Mismanagement was also the background for reporting by the Providence Journal-Bulletin from Rhode Island. Mark England and Darlene McCormick of the Waco Tribune-Herald from Texas were represented in the group of finalists by "a superb example of reporting that required courage, perservance and total commitment by two reporters who risked possible retaliation in exposing criminal acts by a heavily armed camp of a cult leader's followers."86 The award went to the Providence Journal-Bulletin staff "for thorough reporting that disclosed pervasive corruption within the Rhode Island court system."87 The investigative reporting jury of 1995 selected as one of the finalists an exhibit by Dave Davis and Joan Mazzolini of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer. A series done by the reporters, according to the jurors, "broke ground in previously unexplored areas. It brought to light problems that put patients at risk, especially premature babies, heart patients and pregnant women." Keith A. Harriston and Mary Pat Flaherty of the Washington Post were praised for disclosing "flawed hiring and training practices in the District of Columbia police department." Reporters Brian R. Donovan and Stephanie Saul of Newsday, Long Island, "exposed an extensive network of police, politicians, doctors and lawyers who cost taxpayers millions of dollars."88 Brian Donovan and Stephanie Saul won the award "for their stories that revealed disability pension abuses by local police."8^ In 1996 the jury's finalists in this award category were as follows: Chris Adams of the New Orleans Times-Picayune was nominated for "an outstanding investigation by one reporter who mastered the intricacies of Medicaid law" and its abuses in the state of Louisiana. David Jackson and William C. Gaines of the Chicago Tribune had done a "courageously look on a tangled topic that eluded many other newspapers," questionable business dealings of the Nation of Islam religious group. An exhibit by the Orange County Register staff of Santa Ana, California, was praised by the jurors as "the epitome of investigative journalism. "90 This entry won the Pulitzer Prize "for reporting that uncovered fraudulent and unethical fertility practices at a leading research university hospital and prompted key regulatory reforms."91 First of the three finalists in 1997 was Jim Haner of the Baltimore Sun. His "reporting on slumlord housing inspectors is an outstanding example of dogged gumshoe reporting through the streets of one's city," the jurors wrote in their report. An exhibit by the Boston Globe spotlight team offered "a powerful and compelling investigative report showing that hundreds of retired public employees were continuing to collect millions in disability benefits despite having been found fit to return to work." A team of the Seattle Times was represented among the finalists by "a classic piece of investigative journalism... The reporters overcame substantial barriers" to realize an impressive series of 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 13, 1993, p. 2. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 1, 1994, p. 1. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1994, p. 2. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 8, 1995, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 18, 1995, p. 2. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 5, 1996, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 9, 1996, p. 2.

128 articles.92 This series was found best by the Pulitzer Prize Board. So Eric C. Nalder, Deborah Nelson and Alex Tizon of the Seattle Times won the award "for their investigation of widespread corruption and inequities in the federally-sponsored housing program for Native Americans, which inspired much-needed reforms."93 In 1998 the list of the three nominations for the prize started with an exhibit by Will Englund and Gary Cohn of the Baltimore Sun. Their series, in the words of the jurors, "casts a bright light upon an industry that callously imperils its own workers and the surrounding environment." Lisa Getter, Jeff Leen and Gail Epstein of the Miami Herald had disclosed how hundreds of local police officers routinely served as unnecessary witnesses in misdemeanor arrests to gain overtime pay. The St. Petersburg Times staff was praised by the jury for its investigation of the corrupt practices charged to Rev. Henry Lyons, president of the National Baptist Convention.94 The Pulitzer Prize was bestowed on Gary Cohn and Will Englund of the Baltimore Sun "for their compelling series on the international shipbreaking industry that revealed the dangers posed to workers and the environment when discarded ships are dismantled."9^ The jurors of the investigative reporting category in 1999 chose a story by Alix M. Freedman of the Wall Street Journal. She had reported how a controversial chemical sterilization technique was exported by American population control advocates and used on women in Third World countries. The Miami Herald staff came on the list for its investigation of voter fraud which was called "classic, gritty reporting of the highest order." Fred Schulte and Jenni Bergal of the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel from Florida were the third-ranking competitor. The reporters were cited for their investigation of the hidden dangers of cosmetic surgery, a growing yet largely unregulated medical industry.96 The award was bestowed on the Miami Herald staff "for its detailed reporting that revealed pervasive voter fraud in a city mayoral election that was subsequently overturned."97 In 2000 the procedure of bestowing the awards should lead to unexpected results. Three reporters of the Associated Press had presented a "powerful piece of journalism" that shocked the jurors as well as the Board members. Sam Roe of the Toledo Blade from Ohio also had written a tough story, dealing with the misconduct by the American government and the beryllium industry in the production of metal used in nuclear bombs, which resulted in death and injury to dozens of workers, leading to government investigations and safety reforms. Kurt Eichenwald and Gina Kolata of the New York Times were praised for their reporting that disclosed how pharmaceutical companies secretly paid doctors to test drugs on patients.98 The Pulitzer Prize went to Sang-Hun Choe, Charles J. Hanley and Martha Mendoza of the Associated Press "for revealing, with extensive documentation, the decades-old secret of how American soldiers early in the Korean War killed hundreds of Korean civilians in a massacre at the No Gun Ri Bridge."99 This story, which reached far beyond the award description of investigative reporting in a newspaper's local area of distribution, led to a broader dimension in this prize category right at the beginning of the new Millennium. 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 5, 1997, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1997, p. 2. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 4,1998, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 14, 1998, p. 2. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 3, 1999, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1999, p. 2. Investigative Reporting Jury Report, March 1, 2000, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 10, 2000, p. 2.

129 8.

PRIZES FOR GENRES OF OPINION JOURNALISM

Although the main focus of the Pulitzer Journalism Prizes lay on reporting categories, the Pulitzer testament also mentioned one specific area of opinion-based journalism, "Editorial Writing." This award category was the only one in the field of opinion journalism for more than five decades. Then the Advisory Board added a category which first was called "Criticism or Commentary" and soon was split into two separate award groups, entitled "Commentary Writing" and "Criticism Writing."

8.1

Editorial Writing Award

For Joseph Pulitzer, news writing was not the only fundamental element of the press, but also the expression of views. So he also initiated an editorial award1 with the following words: "For the best editorial article written during the year, the test of excellence being clearness of style, moral purpose, sound reasoning, and power to influence public opinion in the right direction."2 "It was discovered very early in the risky business of prizegiving," Hohenberg states with regard to the prize definition, "that an award for 'the best' of anything invariably created an unnecessary amount of argument, and the Pulitzer authorities dropped the term"-* later on. But for the time being the original prize definition for editorial writing was valid, and, as such, binding for the relevant juries as well as for the Advisory Board at the annual prize giving. When the Pulitzer Prizes were awarded for the first time at the end of April, 1917, on the basis of available applications, the Editorial jury was allowed to choose only one single prize-winning editorial because of the regulations stated. In accordance with Pulitzer's statuary stipulations, the 1917 prize was awarded to "an editorial article which appeared... on the first anniversary of the sinking of the Lusitania."4 As editorials within American press organs were basically anonymous, prizes were given to a newspaper rather than an individual. This was not changed until years later, when it became usual to name the author. In 1917 it was Frank H. Simonds who was honored, as John Hohenberg stresses, "for a spirited anti-German editorial," published one year after the spectacular sinking of the American passenger ship by the German military .^ A similar thematic constellation arose in 1918. The members of the jury "unanimously voted to recommend the conferring of the Pulitzer Editorial prize upon the Louisville Courier-Journal, for the editorial article 'Vae Victis,'... and the editorial article 'War Has Its Compensations,'... which were two of many articles directed towards arousing the American people to their international duty and toward convincing a section of the country by tradition hostile to universal military service to the wisdom and necessity of

1 Cf. Heinz-D. Fischer/Erika J. Fischer (Eds.), The Pulitzer Prize Archive, Vol. 4: Political Editorial 1916-1988, Munich - London - New York - Paris 1990, LXXIV + 376 pp. 2 Quoted from De Forest O'Dell, The History of Journalism Education in the United States, New York 1935, p. 109. 3 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, New York - London 1974, p. 20. 4 Editorial Writing Jury Report, April 28, 1917, p. 1. 5 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 31.

130 its establishment."6 The author of both prize-winning editorials, Henry Watterson, Hohenberg stresses, "was the last of the fiercely and devotedly personal journalists of a bygone era... He was far more the bold warrior than the peacemaker... and one of the most determined supporters of American intervention in World War I. Through sheer force of character and journalistic skill, he lifted what had begun as a small regional newspaper into a distinctive publication that was nationally known and admired."7 In 1919 the jury members found themselves "unable to recommend any award of the prize for the best editorial written during" the previous year. "In that year," the jury report states, "American editorial pages were chiefly devoted to inspiring the people and supporting the Government in the winning of the war. At this time no award for discussion of subordinate questions, however good, would seem appropriate, while the response of American editorial writers to their patriotic duty was so uniform and so generally excellent that it seems invidious, if not impossible, to pick out any one article, or groups of articles, as clearly the best among the thousands directed to the same end with the same right-thinking zeal."8 In a later statement the jury members further indicated that "the faculty of the School of Journalism, while unable to recommend any award of the prize for the best editorial..., feel that the Advisory Board may find reason for a different judgment."9 All material concerning the applications was sent along with this statement, so that the process of selection and decision became clear to such a degree that the Advisory Board could also comprehend the decision of the jury and pleaded for "no award."10 Although various categories of the Pulitzer Prizes were dominated by wartime and war-related journalism during the initial period of the prizes, this was to be different for the editorial award of 1920. The jury recommended "that the prize be awarded to Harvey E. Newbranch, of the Evening World-Herald, Omaha, Nebraska, for an editorial entitled 'Law and the Jungle.'"11 However, both jurors had slight reservations about their choice, they were "not entirely satisfied that this editorial is a model of concise and pure style, but consider that it was written at the height of the Omaha race riot and was courageously directed to quell the mob spirit of its readers and was influential in that direction, and the jury feels that on the score of moral purpose, sound reasoning and power to influence public opinion in the right direction, it meets the requirements in larger measure than any other article submitted for consideration."12 The Advisory Board accepted the jury's proposal and bestowed the editorial award upon Harvey E. Newbranch of the Omaha newspaper.1 ^ The jury in 1921 "recommended that the prize be given to the Wall Street Journal for articles written by... William Peter Hamilton on Our Envied Scrapheap,' ... and 'Soviets and Feudalism.'"14 The Advisory Board did not accept this nomination and decided to give "no award" in the editorial category for work done during 1920.15 A different decision was made in 1922 when the jurors reported that "none of the editorials proposed for 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Editorial Writing Jury Report, April 19,1918, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. Editorial Writing Jury Report, May 12, 1919, pp. 1 f. Letter to the President of Columbia University, May 15, 1919, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, 1917-1991, New York 1991, p. 35. John W. Cunliffe, Opinions of the juries on the Pulitzer Prizes, May 10, 1920, p. 1. Editorial Writing Jury Report, April 26,1920, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 35. Editorial Writing Jury Report, April 8, 1921, p. 3. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 35.

131

their consideration was of sufficient merit to justify an award to it. They were," the report states, "therefore, driven to an independent search for articles worthy of consideration. It is, of course, impossible for any such committee to cover the whole field and be sure that articles have not escaped them of superior merit to any examined."16 The jury members finally named two people, whose works they had traced themselves: William Allen White of the Emporia Gazette and Frank M. O'Brien of the New York Herald.11 The Advisory Board accepted the second candidate and gave the award to O'Brien for an article entitled 'The Unknown Soldier.'18 The members of the 1923 jury suggested awarding the editorial prize for "the article entitled 'Schools and Economy' by Alfred Holman in the San Francisco Argonaut."19 As further stated in their report, "the jury also considered a number of other nominations, from which it selected three as most worthy of consideration by the Advisory Board in case, for any reason, the foregoing nomination is not found acceptable: (1) An article from the Emporia Gazette..., by William Allen White, entitled To an Anxious Friend;' (2) an article from the Boston Transcript..., entitled 'Massachusetts - Here She Stands;' (3) an article from the Wall Street Journal..., by William Peter Hamilton, entitled Our Slavery to Phrases.'"20 The Advisory Board selected William Allen White, thus overruling the nomination of Alfred Holman as well as of William P. Hamilton.21 In 1924 the jury examined a number of entries but reported that "none of the editorials submitted, in its judgment, meets the conditions of the award. It respectfully recommends to the Advisory Board," states the jury report, "that the amount set aside for the editorial prize... be paid to the widow of Mr. Frank I. Cobb in recognition of his services to American journalism as an editorial writer" at the New York WorldP· The Advisory Board accepted this suggestion only partially, honoring the Boston Herald "for an editorial entitled 'Who Made Coolidge? '" and giving a "Special prize of $1,000... to the widow of the late Frank I. Cobb..., in recognition of the distinction of her husband's editorial writing and service."23 Because neither the awarded editorial nor its author, Frank Buxton, were in any way mentioned in the jury report, the Advisory Board in this case used its right to nominate the prizewinner of the editorial category independently for the first time. The 1925 Pulitzer Prize Editorial jury examined 125 articles from 78 newspapers which were proposed for consideration. The report also states that the jury was further confronted with "18 articles from nine papers selected by the Chairman of the jury as most worthy of attention from a large number proposed for consideration by students of the School (of Journalism) pursuant to a plan suggested by a special committee of the Advisory Board. As a result of this study the jury unanimously recommended for consideration by the Advisory Board five articles without attempting to arrange them in relative order of merit... The five articles were: 'Victory' by Lucien Price, published in the Boston Globe...; There are Fairies' by Simeon Strunsky, published in the New York Times...; ' The Plight of the South' by Robert Lathan in the Charleston News and Courier...; 'Milk and the Day's News' by Willis J. Abbot in the Christian Science 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Editorial Writing Jury Report, April 12, 1922, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 35. Editorial Writing Jury Report, April 13, 1923, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 35. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 19, 1924, p. 2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 35.

132

Monitor...; Ά Naval Victory Without a Battle1 in the Portland Oregonian."24 The Advisory Board chose one of the suggested editorials and awarded the prize to an article by Robert Lathan, which had been published in the Charleston News and Courier.25 The editorial jury in 1926 also included a detailed account of the selection procedure in their report: "The jury has examined 193 articles from 83 newspapers or chains of newspapers. Each member of the jury made a separate list of articles that he thought worthy of consideration. On comparison it was found that four articles were on the list of all three members: ... "The House of a Hundred Sorrows' by Edward M. Kingsbury in the New York Times...; 'Shall We Have An Established Church?' by an unnamed writer in the New York World...; "The Incomparable Story' by Casper S. Yost in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat...; 'Look Forward Ο Georgia' by Julian Harris in the Columbus, Georgia, Enquirer Sun."26 The jury unanimously voted to award the editorial prize to Julian Harris' article, if the Enquirer Sun did not also receive the Pulitzer Prize in the Public Service category. Otherwise, says the report, the article by Edward M. Kingsbury should receive the award, as it was also "an exquisite piece of work."27 When the Advisory Board did in fact give the Public Service award to the Columbus Enquirer Sun,28 the editorial author of the same newspaper did not also receive an award. The editorial prize was presented - in accordance with the jury's suggestion - to Edward M. Kingsbury of the New York Times.29 For the jury in 1927 the situation was quite clear. "It unanimously resolved to recommend as its first choice for the editorial prize," the report states, "an article entitled 'We Submit -,' written by F. Lauriston Bullard, and published in the Boston Herald... This is a well-written and well reasoned argument for a re-trial of the radicals, Sacco and Vanzetti, now under the death sentence. As the Boston Herald had up to that time upheld the verdict, and resisted attempts at revision, it was an exhibition of great courage to reverse itself when it had reason to believe it was mistaken, especially as the great body of its readers, in common with most of the conservative people in New England, faced this issue with a settled prejudice. The article itself was entirely temperate, showing no partisanship for the men under sentence, but reviewing the situation in an effective demonstration that justice required reconsideration."^ Although the jury report contains the names of several other potential award winners, the Advisory Board was convinced by the clear and well-founded vote for the Boston Herald and awarded the editorial prize to F. Lauriston Bullard.31 The year 1928 brought a few surprises to the editorial category. The jury was "unanimous in selecting the article 'Lindbergh Flies Alone' by Harold MacDonald Anderson, published in the New York Sun... as the most outstanding and popularly commended editorial of the year. We are of the opinion," so the jurors wrote, "that it is by all odds, technically, the most perfect piece of work submitted to us. It is a purely inspirational piece of work with a high spiritual message, holding its interest largely because of the popular enthusiasm over Lindbergh and its own rhetorical felicity. Two other articles dealing with Lindbergh from a more practical point of view are 'Luck and Chance' by William Peter 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 11, 1925, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 35. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 12,1926, p. 1. Ibid., p. 2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 3. Ibid., p. 35. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 12,1927, p. 1. Cf. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 35.

133

Hamilton, in the Wall Street Journal..., and Out of the Ashes of Hate' by William Philip Simms, published in the Washington (D.C.) Daily News... and in other Scripps-Howard newspapers."32 Although the jury report also suggested a number of editorials from other subject areas,33 the Advisory Board could not come to any joint decision in favour of one of these candidates. Instead, they gave the award to Grover C. Hall of the Advertiser from Montgomery, Alabama, "for his editorials against gangsterism, floggings and racial and religious intolerance."34 This was the first time that "the award was given for no specific editorial but for a series."35 In 1929 the jury similarly selected their favorite for the prize from over two hundred editorials submitted by more than fifty newspapers. "The committee uanimously recommends," the jury members wrote in their report, "that the prize be given to the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot for a series of articles written by Louis Isaac Jaffe on the 'Lynching Evil' and in successful advocacy of legislation to prevent it. We select from the series," the report stresses, "an article 'An Unspeakable Act of Savagery'... as the particular article for distinction if it is desired (by the Board) to make the award on one article rather than on the series. The committee also unanimously recommends as worthy of consideration, if its first choice is not acceptable, the article 'While Our Head Remains Cool,1 written by Rowell Meliert and published in the Washington News...; the article entitled 'Liberalism Fights On' by George S. Johns, published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch...; and an article 'The Jazz Age' by Paul Alexander Ritson, published in the Warren PennsylvaniaTimes..."^6 The Advisory Board had no trouble accepting the jury's first nomination so that the editorial award went to Louis I. Jaffe of the Virginian-Pilot for the aforementioned editorial which was called "typical of a series of articles."37 Although the members of the editorial jury of 1930 came to a definite decision concerning the 201 editorials of 57 newspapers, their choice involved a serious problem. "We are uanimously of the opinion," they wrote in their report, "that the most outstanding editorial article brought to our attention is 'Not Heresy but Hunger,' written by Louis Isaac Jaffe, and published in the Virginian-Pilot... This article admirably meets the requirements for the prize, dealing with an important subject in a most useful way and in distinguished and impressive style. We, however, face the fact that this prize was given last year to Mr. Jaffe for an article in the same paper, and the question of policy in awarding the prize two years in succession to the same person is one which is not for us to settle. If the Advisory Board should feel a second award is not desirable we should recommend its consideration of either one of two articles along this same line: 1. the article Industrial Mob Rule,1 written by Douglas S. Freeman and published in the Richmond News-Leader...; 2. the article 'Low Wages No Boon,' by George F. Milton, published in the Chattanooga News..."** The decision of the Advisory Board was, however, "no award" in this category.39 When the jury members gathered in 1931, they had to look through 274 editorials by 59 journalists from 56 press organs. "From among these," states the jury report, "the 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 7, 1928, p. 1. Ibid., pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 35. W. David Sloan (Ed.), Pulitzer Prize Editorials, Ames, la., 1980, p. 31. Editorial Writing Jury Report, February 28, 1929, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 35. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 21,1930, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 35.

134 committee unanimously reports for consideration by the Advisory Board the following articles: 1. 'Mississippi's Greatest Need,' written by Edgar G. Harris and published in the West Point, Mississippi, Times-Leader...; 1. 'An Anglo-American Peace Policy,' written by J. Roscoe Drummond and published in the Christian Science Monitor...; 3. The Gentleman from Nebraska,' written by Charles S. Ryckman and published in the Fremont Tribune of Fremont, Nebraska...; 4. 'Mr. Hoover's Opportunity,' written by Rollo Ogden and published in the New York Times..."40 One of the jury members stated the following in an additional report: "While the four articles submitted herewith represent in our judgment the best editorials submitted for our consideration, it seems proper to note that there were not less than twenty of such excellence as to attract the favorable attention of the committee and to require careful consideration before the final selection was made."41 The Advisory Board selected one of the four suggestions made by the jury and awarded the prize to Charles S. Ryckman.42 The selection of an award winner proved difficult in 1932, although the jury actually reached a definite decision, stated in the following report: "The jury... proposes for the prize an editorial entitled Ά National Problem as Reflected in a Local Murder Trial.' This editorial was published in the McComb Enterprise of McComb, Mississippi. It was written by Mr. John O. Emmerich, editor and publisher of the Enterprise... We have no second choice to suggest."43 The reasons which formed the basis for this decision were expressed by one of the jurors as follows: "The editorial form includes a wide variety of types, ranging all the way from the occasional essay drawn forth by an anniversary, to an intensely personal thrust in a political campaign. The essence of the form is, however, that it should be addressed to a definite audience and should endeavor to move, persuade or excite that audience. I feel that Mr. Emmerich's series of editorials is an extraordinarily able example of these essential qualities... I think the committee can feel much gratification in having so able an entry to which to give the award. I must confess that the rest of the material depressed me considerably."44 The Advisory Board decided on "no award."45 There were more difficulties in 1933. The jury was presented with 297 editorials from 88 press organs. "After reviewing the whole mass of material submitted," states the report, "we are unanimously of the opinion that, while there are many articles of merit both as to style and substance among them, there is no article of such outstanding character as to warrant us in recommending it for the prize... For this reason the Committee recommends that no prize be awarded for the editorial this year."46 However, this general statement was not accepted by the president of Columbia University, a member of the Advisory Board, so that the jury was forced to reconsider the entries. In a second jury report the jurors agreed on the following statement: "1. That the Pulitzer Prize for the best editorial published in 1932 be awarded to the Kansas City Star for a series of editorials on national and international subjects; 2. That if the Advisory Board is opposed to an award for a series of articles, then members of the jury recommend 'Lift Up Your Hearts,' published in the New York Times, as the best single editorial submitted to the

40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 13, 1931, pp. 1 f. Letter to the President of Columbia University, March 13, 1931, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 36. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 15,1932, p. 1. Quoted ibid., pp. 1 f. Columbia University (Ed.), op. cit., p. 36. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 15,1933, pp. 1 ff.

135

jury."47 The Advisory Board awarded the prize to the Kansas City Star for editorials48 which were written by Henry J. Haskell. After the experience of the preceding year the jury of 1934 tried to reach a definite decision, but were unable to come to an unanimous agreement. "The committee has been unable to reach an unanimous conclusion as to the first article to be recommended," says the jury report, which then continues: Two jurors "give first place to an article by E. P. Chase, published in the Atlantic News-Telegraph of Atlantic, Iowa, ... and entitled 'Where is Our Money?' We consider the article an outstanding example of courageous editorial work in a region where the economic crisis had brought wide dissatisfaction and people were inclined to blame others for all their troubles..." The third juror recommended "for first place the article by Osburn Zuber published in the Birmingham News of Birmingham, Alabama, ... entitled 'Why We Still Have Lynchings in the South.' He recommends this chiefly for the editor's courage in carrying the attack into the heart of the enemy camp and for having the fairness to quote in full the widely accepted view of a large section of the Southern community on the subject of lynching, meeting each argument of the opposition point by point."49 Editorials by seven other journalists were also short-listed.50 The Advisory Board voted in favour of Edwin P. Chase's editorial.51 In 1935 a jury of eight made suggestions for all journalism categories. Out of the editorials entered, the following five journalists were recommended as finalists to the Advisory Board: Malcolm W. Bingay of the Detroit Free Press, David Lawrence of the United States News, Henry J. Haskell of the Kansas City Star, Tully Nettleton of the Christian Science Monitor as well as Karl E. Kilby of the New Mexico paper Raton Range.52 None of these suggestions was accepted by the Advisory Board and there was "no award. "5^ In 1936 the jurors named about a dozen journalists whose editorials were short-listed for the award, and thus all could be seen as potential award winners. Among those listed was Felix Morley of the Washington Post.54 The Advisory Board chose him as one of two award winners. Morley shared the honor with George B. Parker of Scripps-Howard Newspapers who did not actually appear on the jury's list of twelve. Therefore, he had to be named by the Board itself. Felix Morley and George B. Parker were jointly awarded the Pulitzer Editorial Prize "for distinguished editorial writing during the year."55 In 1937 the jury drew up a list of three finalists for the editorial category: "1. 'The Opposition,' an editorial published in the Sun of Baltimore...; 2. the series of editorials entitled 'The Farmer and the Land,' published in the Des Moines, Iowa, Register and Tribune; 3. the editorial work of Earl W. Miller of the Detroit News during the year 1936."56 The Advisory Board confirmed the first nomination and awarded the prize to the author of the aforementioned article, John W. Owens.57

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

Letter to the President of Columbia University, April 18, 1933, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. tit., p. 36. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 23,1934, p. 1. Ibid., pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 36. Journalism Jury Report, March 30, 1935, pp. 2 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 36. Editorial Writing Jury Report, April 3, 1936, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 36. Editorial Writing Jury Report, undated (April 1937), p. 3. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 36.

136 In 1938 the jury also decided on a row of finalists, including the following newspapers and journalists: 1. the Bismarck, North Dakota, Tribune's series of editorials 'Self Help in the Dust Bowl;' 2. the New York Times for its editorial 'America's Aloofness;' 3. Reuben Maury, chief editorial writer of the New York Daily News; 4. the Illinois State Journal for the editorial 'Christmastide Prophesy;' 5. the New York Post for its editorial The Right to Picket - and Its Abuse.'58 The Advisory Board ignored these suggestions and named one award winner who had already been a finalist in the previous year. The award went to William W. Waymack of the Des Meines Register and Tribune?9 Before selections were made in 1939, Joseph Pulitzer Π, son of the prize founder, made the following proposal to the other Board members in his capacity as a member of the Advisory Board: "I should like to submit for your serious consideration... the suggestion that the identities of the writers and the newspapers submitting material for the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing be concealed while the Board makes its choice. As I see it, this would relieve the Board of any possible charges that it was showing favoritism for any group of newspapers. It should also enable the members of the Board to weigh more accurately the real journalistic merits of the material submitted and completely eliminate any possible bias, however unconscious."60 It is not known whether the Advisory Board or the jury actually followed the suggestions. The award went to Ronald G. Callvert of the Portland Oregonian "for his distinguished editorial writing during the year, as exemplified by the editorial entitled, 'My Country Tis of Thee.'"61 In 1940 no less than 1,152 editorials were submitted to the editorial jury. "We agree," the members wrote in their report, "that the outstanding editorial achievement of the year was the settlement of the San Francisco waterfront strike by Paul C. Smith, editor and general manager of the Chronicle."^ Furthermore, the following five entries also reached the final group: 1. 'The Lesson that was not Learned' from the Portland Oregonian; 2. Ί am War' from the World of Aberdeen, Wash.; 3. 'No Ivory Tower' from the New York Times; 4. 'Before It Is Too Late' from the New York Times; 5. 'America Fights for Peace,' 'How to Settle Dock Tie-up Now1 and Ά Memorandum' from the San Francisco Chronicled None of the named entries received the award because the Advisory Board gave the prize to Bart Howard of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch "for his distinguished editorial writing during the year."64 A similar awarding procedure occurred in 1941. The jury compiled a "best-five" list with the following names: Ralph Coghlan of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Herbert Agar of the Louisville Courier-Journal, Charles Merz of the New York Times, Robert L. Duffus of the New York Times and William W. Waymack of the Des Moines Register and Tribune.^ The prize was awarded by the Advisory Board, however, to Reuben Maury of the New York Daily News,66 who was not mentioned on the list. In 1942 the jury had to look through 109 entries with over 600 editorials. The first place in the jury report was given to "a series of editorials from the New York HeraldTribune by Mr. Geoffrey Parsons. This series by the chief editorial writer of a leading 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

Editorial Writing Jury Report, undated (April 1938), p. 4. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 36. Letter to Dean Carl W. Ackerman, November 25, 1938, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 36. Editorial Writing Jury Report, April 15, 1940, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 36. Editorial Writing Jury Report, April 3,1941, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 36.

137 Republican newspaper urges national unity behind the national leader whom this editorial writer and his paper had vigorously opposed for re-election, and whose domestic policies Mr. Parsons still asserts leave much to be desired. These editorials seem outstanding examples of cooperation in a crisis by an opposition newspaper; are carefully reasoned, contain scholarly background, and are vigorously expressed in excellent and calmly persuasive prose."67 In addition to this prize favourite, the jury report named six further finalists: Charles Merz of the New York Times, the Hartford Daily Courant; the Journal-Bulletin of Providence, R.I.; Marvin McCarthy of the Chicago Times; Hazel Parker of the Louisville Courier-Journal and William R. Matthews of the Arizona Daily Star.68 The Advisory Board accepted the jury's suggestion and awarded the prize to Geoffrey Parsons of the New York Herald-Tribune "for his distinguished editorial writing during the year."69 At the time of the Second World War, the situation in 1943 was such that the jury again consisted of only one person for the editorial category. "The best single editorial," the juror writes in his report, "was published in the New York Times... entitled 'The Tide of War: 1940-42.' The authorship is listed as anonymous... The best body of work for the year is Forrest W. Seymour's, from the editorial pages of the Des Meines, la., Register and Tribune..."™ Furthermore, works by Simeon Strunsky of the New York Times, by Reginald W. Kauffman of the Bangor Daily News, by Ralph M. Blagden of the St. Louis Star-Times as well as articles by various authors of the Washington Post, are mentioned as possible candidates for the award.71 The report ends on a note of veiled criticism: "Incidentally," it says, "something seems wrong with the nominating mechanism. We have seen many editorials in the Times and the Herald-Tribune of New York during the past year which are considerably better than most of those nominated. And if this is true for two papers in one city, it must be true for papers in other cities."7^ The Advisory Board finally awarded the prize to Forrest W. Seymour of the Des Moines Register and Tribune.^ In the following award year, 1944, war was also to be a major theme of entries within the editorial category. The jury came to the following conclusions in their report: "Two editorials seem to stand out: First, Ά New Year Comes,' by Walter Millis, in the New York Herald-Tribune... Second, 'Three Americans,' by an anonymous writer in the magazine Life... For the best group of editorials, considered as a unified whole, the committee selected... eleven editorials written by Merlo J. Pusey, editorial writer of the Washington Post and printed in that newspaper."74 Articles by the following authors were also short-listed: Walter J. Pfister of the Sheboygan Press in Sheboygan, Wis.; Harold L. Van Deusen of the Daily Freeman in Kingston, N.Y., as well as William W. Waymack of the Des Moines Register and Tribune.15 The Advisory Board once again made use of its fundamental right to accept or to ignore the jury's suggestions and to find its own prize-winners. The members of the committee did not choose anyone from the jury's list

67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Editorial Writing Jury Report, undated (March 1942), p. 1. Ibid., pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 36. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 15,1943, p. 1. Ibid.,pp. I f . Ibid.,p.2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 36. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 20, 1944, p. 1. Ibid.

138 as Pulitzer-award winner. Instead, they selected an editorial writer who had already won the prize a decade earlier: Henry J. Haskell of the Kansas City Star was the victor.76 The jury of 1945 stated in their report: "Among the individual editorials submitted, the best appears to be The Poisons of Intolerance,' written by Bradley L. Morison of the Minneapolis Daily Times... It has been widely reprinted... Another individual editorial of merit is 'Mission for Truth,' by George W. Potter of the Providence Journal-Bulletin. This editorial... is a plea for international freedom of information... The best group of submitted editorials, considered as a unit, ... is that written by Nanine Simmons of the Mexia Daily News, Mexia, Texas... Also worth attention are the many editorials of Henry Suydam, chief editorial writer of the Newark Evening News... Other editorials of merit are a group of twenty-nine written by Forrest W. Seymour... of the Des Moines Register and Tribune."1^ When board member Joseph Pulitzer II received this list of suggestions he was "disappointed with the recommendations for the Editorial Prize. I wonder," he continued, "whether in the presidential year of 1944 there is not a political editorial... which lives up to the terms of the award."78 One of the jury members, who had already expressed himself earlier as "somewhat disturbed about the quality of the Pulitzer Prize Editorials,"79 confirmed Pulitzer's opinion with the words: "Unfortunately, the quality of the political editorials is not good."80 The Advisory Board accepted one of the jury's original suggestions and awarded the prize to George W. Potter of the Providence Journal-Bulletin "especially for his editorials on the subject of freedom of the press."81 In 1946, when it was time to select a prize-winning editorial from the last year of the Second World War, the only juror complained right at the beginning of his report that "the average quality of editorials submitted for the prize for 1945 is not high, but is above that of last year."82 He named 'Modern Man Is Obsolete' by Norman Cousins of the Saturday Review of Literature... as the 'best editorial,' but there was some doubt concerning the validity of the article, because it had not been published in a daily. Four further articles had been shortlisted: To the Most Fortunate People in the World,' published in the Louisville Courier-Journal; 'It Can't Be Kept,' by Stuart H. Perry, published in the Daily Telegram of Adrian, Mich.; 'The President,' published in the New York HeraldTribune; 'Utter and Abysmal Failure,' by Hodding Carter, published in the Delta Democrat-Times of Mississippi.83 Other entries mentioned in the report included editorial articles from the 5α« Francisco Chronicle, the Stamford Advocate, the Trenton Evening Times, the Washington Post, the Evening Herald of Manchester, Conn., the Des Moines Register and Tribune and the Wall Street Journal.84 The Advisory Board was most impressed by articles by Hodding Carter and awarded him the Pulitzer Editorial Prize "for a group of editorials... on the subject of racial, religious and economic intolerance."85 As far as is known from the sources, there were no particular problems concerning the awarding of Pulitzer Editorial Prizes in the early years following the Second World War. In 1947 the jury consisted of two people, and the Advisory Board awarded the prize to 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 36. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 6, 1945, p. 1. Letter to Professor William O. Trapp, March 29, 1945, p. 1. Floyd Taylor, Memorandum, March 6,1945, p. 1. Letter to Joseph Pulitzer II, April 5, 1945, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 36. Editorial Writing Jury Report, April 1, 1946, p. 1. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 36.

139 William H. Grimes of the Wall Street Journal "for his distinguished editorial writing during the year."86 In 1948 both jurors compiled a list of prospective candidates for the prize which did not actually include the eventual winner who had not submitted an entry.87 The victor, Virginius Dabney of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, was nominated by the Advisory Board.88 As John Hohenberg remarked, one Board member "opposed the selection of Virginius Dabney for the Editorial Writing Prize on the horrendous ground that the editor of the Richmond Times-Dispatch was an enemy of Senator Harry Flood Byrd. The Board did not regard that as a disqualification by any means and voted Dabney the... award."89 In 1949 the jury and the Advisory Board were again incapable of reaching a clear decision, so that "the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing was shared by two journalists,"90 John H. Crider of the Boston Herald and Herbert B. Elliston of the Washington Post, "for distinguished editorial writing during the year."9! The awarding of the prize also caused problems in 1950. The jurors named the following six finalists in their suggestion list: "Alden Hoag of the Boston Herald for his sustained, excellently written and effective series on the Van Waters Case... in Massachusetts; Vermont C. Royster of the Wall Street Journal for unusual excellence... in expressing the problems and hopes of our age; Robert J. Blakely of the St. Louis Star-Times for the vigor, courage, and reflection of social responsibility in the whole field of editorials from international to local...; Michael Bradshaw of the Toledo Blade for his aggressive and courageous defenses of civil rights...; Lauren Soth of the Des Meines Register for his detailed, highly constructive, non-partisan series on postwar agricultural problems; Ben Hur Lampman of the Portland Oregonian for the literary quality and persuasiveness of his editorials..."92 Once again the Advisory Board ignored this list of suggestions and selected their own award winner, Carl M. Saunders of the Citizen Patriot from Jackson, Mich., who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.93 Problems occurred again in 1951. The two jurors looked through the extensive material, presented a list of seven names in alphabetical order and pin-pointed the merits of the nominees in that: Donald M. Ewing of the Times in Shreveport, La., had "written with fine clarity, ... readable and understandable, ... by no means dull...;" Jack W. Gore of the Daily News in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., had shown "a sustained capacity for writing clear comment, with sincerity and with more than an average amount of originality;" Frank Grimes of the Reporter-News of Abeline, Tex., had been able to "write about anything and make it interesting... and make each editorial a personal experience for his readers;" John M. Harrison of the Toledo Blade from Ohio had been qualified to "put into his editorials so many of the things that have been influencing the inner thinking of the American public...;" Harvey E. Newbranch of the World-Herald from Omaha, Neb., editorials had offered "the kind of high inspiration which is the finest achievement of any newspaper editorial writer;" Robert M. White II of the Ledger from Mexico, Mo., had written "well, ... with honesty, and sometimes with passion, and often with humor;" 86 Ibid. 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

Cf. W. David Sloan (Ed.), Pulitzer Prize Editorials, op. cil., p. 88. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 37. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 196. W. David Sloan (Ed.), Pulitzer Prize Editorials, op. cit., p. 91. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 37. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 13, 1950, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 37.

140 Raymond A. McConnell Jr. of the Evening Journal from Lincoln, Neb., had worked "with originality, sincerity, a wide range of information and with extraordinary skill."94 All these merits, however, were not enough to win the Advisory Board over to one of the seven candidates, because it finally awarded the prize to someone completely different, namely William H. Fitzpatrick of the New Orleans States "for his series of editorials analyzing and clarifying a very important constitutional issue."95 In 1952, when two jurors sorted through the entries and made their suggestions, the Advisory Board decided in favour of Louis LaCoss of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat for his editorial entitled The Low Estate of Public Morals,'96 which "may have evoked more public response than any other Pulitzer Prize editorial."97 The members of the editorial jury in 1953 drew up a list of five finalists: Francis P. Locke of the Daily News from Dayton, Oh.; Vermont C. Royster of the Wall Street Journal; Dwight E. Sargent of the Press Herald in Portland, Me.; several editorial writers of the Washington Post, and Robert M. White II of the Ledger in Mexico, Mo.98 The members of the jury, as stated in their report, agreed "unanimously that the entries of the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post come nearest to meeting the standard as set forth in the requirements for this award."99 Although the Advisory Board had frequently discussed in recent years whether the Wall Street Journal should be regarded as a regular daily or merely as a business newspaper,100 Vermont C. Royster of this periodical was awarded the prize "for distinguished editorial writing."101 In 1954 there were, again, only two jurors responsible for the examination of the entries, and the Advisory Board gave the Pulitzer Prize to Don Murray of the Boston Herald "for a series of editorials on the 'New Look' in National Defence which won wide attention for their analysis of changes in American military policy."102 In 1955 the editorial jury put five journalists on the short-list: John H. Cline of the Washington Evening Star; Robert M. White II of the Ledger in Mexico, Mo.; Royce Howes of the Detroit Free Press; John B. Oakes of the New York Times, as well as Alan H. Olmstead of the Evening Herald of Manchester, Conn.103 Although the jury favored John H. Cline and confirmed his "clearness of style, good moral purpose, sound reasoning and power to influence public opinion,"104 the Advisory Board selected Royce Howes. This journalist of the Detroit Free Press was awarded the prize "for an editorial on "The Cause of a Strike,' impartially and clearly analyzing the responsibility of both labor and management for a local union's unauthorized strike."105 In 1956 the jury decided on four potential finalists. The jury ranked them as follows: 1. Alan Barth of the Washington Post and the Times Herald "has our strong recommendation for this prize... This is the best set of editorials that has come before us;" 2. John H. O'Dowd of the Morning News in Florence, S.C., "explains and interprets the news, reflecting a keen understanding of primary issues and helps the reader to under94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

Editorial Writing Jury Report, undated (March 1951), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op, cit., p. 37. Ibid. W. David Sloan (Ed.), Pulitzer Prize Editorials, op. cit., p. 100. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 10, 1953, p. 1. Ibid. Cf. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 194 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 37. Ibid. Editorial Writing Jury Report, undated (March 1955), p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 37.

141

stand the world he lives in;" 3. Perry C. Hill of the Milwaukee Journal is "in the great crusading tradition of press community conscience, promoting the public interest by going behind the reported news with perception, clarity, and conviction;" 4. Lauren K. Soth of the Des Meines Register and Tribune "tended to bring about face-to-face dealings between Soviet citizens and the West, on a plane that was earthy, and in a way that both sides in the battle for the minds of men could readily understand, thus skirting many lies of propaganda and hurdling iron curtains."106 The Advisory Board made the fourth man victor and awarded the Pulitzer Prize to Lauren K. Soth "for the editorial inviting a farm delegation from the Soviet Union to visit Iowa, which led directly to the Russian farm visit to the U.S."107 When the jury members of 1957 wrote their report, Buford Boone of the Tuscaloosa News from Alabama was their clear favorite: "This entry is commended to the Pulitzer judges on the basis of the clarity, logic and moral force with which the writer has presented his point of view in an explosive and violent situation where the weight of local opinion of a contrary sort made itself felt. His editorials constitute a demonstration of the contribution which an editorial page can make to the sane, sober and calm consideration of issues at a time when popular opinion may be inflamed and excited... For these reasons, the jurors unanimously recommend this entry for the award of the Pulitzer judges..."108 Furthermore the jury report also mentioned four other journalists as possible award-winners: Herbert Brucker of the Hartford Courant; Harold McCall of the New Orleans Times-Picayune; William W. Vosburgh Jr. of the American Republican and Creed Black of the Nashville Tennessean.109 The Advisory Board followed the jury's suggestion and gave the award to Buford Boone "for his fearless and reasoned editorials in a community inflamed by a segregation issue, an outstanding example of his work being the editorial entitled 'What a Price for Peace."'110 In 1958 the jury members also reached a clear recommendation. "We nominate for winner of the editorial writing prize," says their report, "Harry Ashmore of the Arkansas Gazette. His entry seemed to us to be head and shoulders above all others. It exemplifies clearness of style, moral purpose, sound reasoning, and power to influence public opinion in the best tradition of the American press."111 These qualities were enough to convince the Advisory Board to award the prize to Harry S. Ashmore "for the forcefulness, dispassionate analysis and clarity of his editorials on the school integration conflict in Little Rock."112 The jury of 1959 wrote a report which simply stated the names of four finalists, without any additional explanations. The list named the editorial writers Lenoir Chambers of the Norfolk Virginian Pilot, Ralph McGill of the Atlanta Constitution, Cecil Prince of the Charlotte News as well as Simon Casady of the El Cajon Valley News.113 The Advisory Board accepted one of the nominations and awarded the Pulitzer Prize to Ralph McGill "for his distinguished editorial writing..., as exemplified in his editorial Ά Church, A School...' and for his long, courageous and effective editorial leadership."114 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114

Editorial Writing Jury Report, undated (March 1956), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 37. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 12, 1957, p. 1. lbid.,p.2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 37. Editorial Writing Jury Report, undated (March 1958), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 37. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 12, 1959, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 38.

142 The jury of 1960 saw the need to write a detailed report to clarify a specific situation. "The jury studying the... entries," says the text, "found a fine body of editorial writing. Many were informed, competent, forthright, and penetrating commentaries on events, indicating the rising quality of editorial pages. However, no single entry seemed to emerge from the group with sufficient stature or significance to meet the high standards regarded as requisite for the Pulitzer award. We cannot say, This is it.'"115 In spite of this, the jurors went on to name five possible award winners: Nicholas Blatchford of the Washington Daily News; Hal Burton of Newsday from Garden City, N.Y.; Norman A. Cherniss of the Press-Enterprise from Riverside, Cal.; Richard J. Margolis of the Press from Brooklyn Heights, N.Y., and John D. Maurice of the Daily Mail from Charleston, W.Va.116 In view of the jury's uncertainty, the Advisory Board did not hesitate to find its own award-winner. It was Lenoir Chambers of the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, who was given the award "for his series of editorials on the school integration problem in Virginia, as exemplified by 'The Year the Schools Closed'... and The Year the Schools Opened.'"117 In 1961 the jury members named only four finalists in their report "submitting the nominations without expressing an order of preference in which they should be considered by the Advisory Board."118 The nominations were: John H. O'Brien of the Detroit News, Robert Lasch of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, William Dorvillier of the Puerto Rico San Juan Star, and John D. Maurice of the Daily Mail from Charleston, W.Va.119 The Advisory Board accepted one of the suggested journalists by declaring William J. Dorvillier the victor "for his editorials on clerical interference in the... gubernatorial election in Puerto Rico."120 The jury of 1962 listed five names in their report, this time according to preference: 1. Hazel Brannon Smith of the Advertiser from Lexington, Miss.; 2. John S. Hooper of the Reformer from Brattleboro, Vt.; 3. Thomas M. Storke of the News-Press from Santa Barbara, Cal.; 4. John A. Hamilton of the News from Lynchburg, Va.; 5. Thomas E. Murphy of the Courant of Hartford, Conn. Although the jury report stresses that "the four jurors were unanimous in selecting Mrs. Smith's editorials as their first choice after an independent study of all entries,"121 the Advisory Board favoured Thomas M. Storke "for his forceful editorials calling public attention to the activities of a semi-secret organization."122 When the jury of 1963 dealt with the submitted entries, one of the more common subjects of the editorials was racial conflict in several Southern states. This problem was also the theme of the jurors' favorite editorial, written by Ira B. Harkey Jr. of the Chronicle from Pascagoula, Miss. "Mr. Harkey's submission," says the report, "meets all of the standards set out by the Pulitzer Committee. He demonstrated unusual courage in standing up against all manner of threats and continued to fight in his editorial columns for wisdom, sanity, decency and observance of the law."123 Although the jury also named William A. Caldwell of the Record from Hackensack, N.J., Price Day of the Baltimore 115 Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 14, 1960, p. 1.

116 Ibid. 117 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 38. 118 Editorial Writing Jury Report, undated (March 1961), p. 1.

119 120 121 122 123

Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 38. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 9,1962, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 38. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 8, 1963, p. 1.

143

m Aintertet

Thunday, Nor. 28, 1963

First Lincoln, Now Kennedy

The South Kills Another President The President of the United States is dead. And the South killed him. It was the hand of a Texan who pulled the trigger, but it could just as easily have been a Mississippian, an Alabamian, or someone from Louisiana. The same kind of madness, malice and hatred which provoked this unspeakable crime against all humanity has been manifested by too many people in the Deep South.

* ** The ugly truth is that John Kennedy has bee» killed many times in the fanatical minds and black hearts of some violence prone Southerners — and perhaps in other regions as well. All of us have heard and read the hate-Kennedy jokes which are a mark of a low grade mind, suggestive of the sick times in which we live. All of us have heard one speaker after another, having no accomplishment« or record of his own, woo his audience with a cuss-Kennedy speech, attacks which have been not only unChristian, unfair and in poor taate but for the most part based on false, incomplete information. Or downright malice. Yet, either through ignorance on our own part or cowardice, we have sat silently and failed to defend what we know to be right. Through our own lack of character and high purpose, by our own irresponsible citizenship as evidenced in our failure to speak out, we have abdicated the stage to the demagogues, bigots and other hate-filled extremists — and they, bad actors as they are, have created in Mississippi and the South the atmosphere in which the President of the United States is brutally murdered, shot in the back. It is shocking and unbelievable that we have sunk so low...

Hazel Brannon Smith Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing, 1964

144 Sun and Robert Lasch of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as possible prize candidates, it stressed quite clearly: "Deep consideration was given to the work of all these editors, but the jurors were of the unanimous opinion that Mr. Harkey's work was of such high order that there could be no question about their recommendation."124 The Advisory Board accepted this clear preference and made Ira B. Harkey Jr. the Pulitzer Prize winner "for his courageous editorials devoted to the processes of law and reason during the integration crisis in Mississippi."125 The same theme of racial conflict was again dominant in the following year, 1964. The jury decided to favor one entry on this subject, in particular. "The... committee selected as its first choice," the jury report states, the exhibit "of Hazel Brannon Smith, of the Lexington Advertiser, of Lexington, Miss. The considerations in which this entry excelled were 'the clearness of style, the moral purpose, and sound reasoning,' all specified as major considerations in judging the entries. The two characteristics which probably most influenced the judges were the tempered eloquence, and superb courage evidenced by Mrs. Smith's steadfast adherence to her editorial duty, in the face of great pressure and opposition. The judges' selection was unanimous. The works of Eugene Patterson of the Atlanta Constitution and of John A. Hamilton of the Norfolk, Va., Ledger Star," the report concluded, were "also in the unanimous opinion of the undersigned, worthy of second highest consideration."126 The Advisory Board voted in favor of the courageous journalist Hazel Brannan Smith.127 She earned the Pulitzer Prize "for steadfast adherence to her editorial duty in the face of great pressure and opposition."128 The Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing moved towards entries written on themes "on the quieter side" in 1965.129 The jurors came to the unanimous conclusion, "that the prize... should be awarded to John R. Harrison" of the Daily Sun from Gainesville, pja 130 "The subject of his entry," the jury report continues, "is 'Battle for Minimum Housing Code to Correct Housing Blight in Gainesville, Florida.' (The) jurors agree that imaginative use was made of the editorial column for a specific objective, which was accomplished. The editorial series is a compact package. It is crisp and articulate, and is notable for the adroit alternation of text and pictures. While we find this entry outstanding, we also commend to the attention of the Advisory Board the following entries: 'Campaign Against Hot Springs Gambling,' by James O. Powell, editorial page editor, Arkansas Gazette, Little Rock; The McComb, Miss., Story,' by J. Oliver Emmerich, editor-publisher, McComb, Miss., Enterprise-Journal."131 The Advisory Board followed the jury's suggestion and John R. Harrison received the Pulitzer award "for his successful editorial campaign for better housing in his city."132 There were problems again in 1966, although the jury stated its clear preference as follows: "Paul Greenberg of the Pine Bluff, Ark., Commercial; John S. Knight of the Detroit Free Press; Robert Lasch of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The jury prefers Mr. Greenberg over the other two by a narrow margin, and recommends Mr. Knight and Mr. Lasch equally. The jury felt that all three exemplified the finest traditions of American 124 Ibid. 125 126 127 128 129 130

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 38. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 5,1964, p. 1. Cf. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 243. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 38. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 251. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1965, p. 1.

131 Ibid. 132 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 38.

145

journalism in taking outspoken positions on controversial issues of the day. In Mr. Greenberg's case, a distinct element of personal danger in his embroilment in bitter local controversy weighed heavily with the jury."133 The members of the Advisory Board did not share this opinion and chose another editorial writer out of this group of three as the award winner. The prize went to Robert Lasch of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch "for his distinguished editorial writing."134 The jury of 1967 selected six finalists. "We have separated the list into two parts," states the report, "three whose entries we consider superior, and the other three as possible alternates."135 The three in the first group, listed alphabetically, were: John A. Hamilton of the Detroit Free Press "for a series of cogent, persuasive and courageous editorials upholding freedom of dissent by students subject to the draft;" Eugene Patterson of the Atlanta Constitution "for assorted editorials, evidencing grace, sensitivity and courage;" A. H. Raskin of the New York Times "for editorials on industrial and labor subjects, showing acute perception, literary style and incisive appraisal."136 In the second group were Sylvan H. Meyer of the Times from Gainesville, Ga., Lawrence G. Weiss of the Denver Post, and James R. Wiggins of the Washington Posf.137 Although the jury conceded in its report that this list of suggestions was not necessarily to be regarded as a viable basis for a decision by the Advisory Board, as it had been put together quickly to a very tight time schedule, the Advisory Board nevertheless chose an award winner from the first mentioned group of three. The prize went to Eugene Patterson.138 In 1968 the members of the jury were faced with a fundamental problem, which they expressed in their report as follows: "The jurors... have by a majority vote chosen the entry... of Thomas Vail and Raymond Dorsey of the Cleveland Plain Dealer as the winning entry in this category. The jury does raise this question: While it is, of course, understood that the publisher of a newspaper is responsible for the editorial policy of that newspaper, we wonder whether Mr. Vail should be included in the award, if one is made. Perhaps the Advisory Board should determine whether Mr. Vail actually had a part in the framing of the editorials supporting Mr. Dorsey (the chief editorial writer), or whether he merely determined the policy. In the latter event, it would seem to us that the award should go to Mr. Dorsey, rather than being given jointly to him and to Mr. Vail. This entry is our first choice. Should the Advisory Board not concur in this choice, we suggest that any one of the following four entries be chosen, and we make no distinction among them: John A. Hamilton, John S. Knight, W. G. Peeples, Daniel M. Ryan."139 The Advisory Board did not want to solve or could not solve the problem concerning the Cleveland Plain Dealer's entry and decided in favour of an award winner from the reserve group. The Pulitzer Prize went to John S. Knight of Knight Newspapers,^® for articles opposing the Vietnam War. The editorial selected in 1969 again dealt with a theme which was popular at the start of the decade. The members of the jury recommended in their report for the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished editorial writing the nomination of Millard C. Browne of the Buffalo Evening News. The jury also mentioned four additional entries in the following 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140

Editorial Writing Jury Report, undated (March 1966), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 38. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 9, 1967, p. 1. Ibid. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 38. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 7,1968, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 38.

146 order of preference: A. H. Raskin of the New York Times; Paul Greenberg of the Commercial from Pine Bluff, Ark.; Richard Hollander of the Washington Daily News, and James A. Clendinen of the Tampa Tribune.141 "In reaching its decision," the report states quite clearly, "the jury came to a substantial consensus on the first choice on the grounds that at a time when the judicial process is under strident attack, these editorials reflected an independent, thoughtful, well-written exposition of the author's point of view."142 Once again the Advisory Board did not accept the jury's favourite as the prize winner. Instead it gave the award to Paul Greenberg.143 The jury members of 1970 chose five finalists and characterized their editorials briefly. They selected Patrick J. Owens of Newsday from Garden City, N.Y., for first place with the words: "His writing is unusually clear, persuasive and interesting, illuminated by very high moral purpose, and his conclusions are supported by evidence introduced in an exceptionally concise manner. He attacks local problems as vigorously as he does those of national and international concern."144 Philip L. Geyelin of the Washington Post took second place and was praised for his "exceptional lucidity and fairness" concerning "a broad range of problems. His analyses are perceptive and smooth and avoid over-statement." Lee Olson of the Denver Post gained third place on the list; he "raised vigorously and clearly, but also with the calmness requisite in view of the subject, warnings about possible dangers inherent in nuclear explosions in the Denver area." John Oakes of the New York Times and Richard Montague of the New York Post held joint fourth place. "Mr. Oakes writes smoothly and very persuasively about a variety of problems of great public concern," says the report, and "Mr. Montague is exceptionally adept at using either a serious or a light approach in discussing public issues."14^ The Advisory Board decided in favour of the second nomination and gave the Pulitzer Prize to Philip L. Geyelin.146 In 1971, when the jurors had considered the nominations for the Editorial writing category, only three potential award winners were recommended. First place was given to Horance G. Davis Jr. of the Sun from Gainesville, Fla., who examined "an intense and emotional local issue... His style and effective use of the language," the jury report states, "were designed for maximum impact on his readers."147 James Clayton of the Washington Post was given second place, because "the writer demonstrated meticulous and timely research and studious reasoning, devoid of hysterics, yet emphasizing the importance of solving a national problem." The third place went to David Wilson of the Boston Globe who "exhibited great knowledge of his subject and used this background, along with a clear writing style, to lead his newspaper's campaign for successful adoption of reform."148 The jurors confessed at the end of their report that "the committee's choice was made difficult by the fundamental difference in type of editorial writing exemplified by the first two recommendations. One is highly local,... exhibiting a degree of personal courage; the other is a fine example of a professional editorial writer using the skills and resources of a large newsgathering organization."149 The Advisory Board accepted the 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149

Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 7,1969, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 38. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 6, 1970, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 38. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 5, 1971, p. 1. Ibid. Ibid.

147

first nomination and awarded Horance G. Davis Jr. the prize "for his editorials in support of the peaceful desegregation in Florida's schools."150 In 1972 sixty entries were submitted to the jurors. They unanimously agreed on James Ahearn of the Record from Hackensack, N.J., for first place, because the "jury was impressed with the consistent high level of quality writing in Mr. Ahearn's editorials. He exhibits a wide range of expertise in many local, national and international subjects."151 John Strohmeyer of the Globe-Times from Bethlehem, Pa., reached second place on the list. "The jury... notes the excellence of Mr. Strohmeyer's entry," states the report, "which exhibits strong courage in the face of a community crisis." Third place was given to William J. Caldwell of the Sunday Telegram from Portland, Me. His "entry exhibited comprehensive editorial effort which serves to inform and persuade the readers of the newspaper in a wide range of state issues."152 The Advisory Board was, above all, impressed by the entry by John Strohmeyer, who was awarded the prize "for his editorial campaign to reduce racial tensions in Bethlehem."153 The jury of 1973 recommended "unanimously that the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished Editorial Writing be awarded to Roger Bourne Linscott of the Berkshire Eagle. Mr. Linscott's entry," the report continues, "is notable for its consistent display of clear, high quality writing. His style throughout the presentation is characterized by thoughtfulness, clarity, and sound intellectual reasoning. His editorials do not preach; they elucidate and suggest. He deals most effectively with community issues which he examines with discipline, specifics and open-mindedness. His entry reflects a high standard of leadership on community issues whether they are popular or not. He writes with equal ease and knowledge on national subjects. The jury submits that Mr. Linscott represents in all areas the criteria of judgement, intellect and effect writing."154 The jury also regarded the following runner-up entries as highly meritorious: Robert L. Bartley of the Wall Street Journal, Meg Greenfield of the Washington Post, and John R. Harrison of the Ledger from Lakeland, Fla.155 The Advisory Board declared the first nomination on the jury's list the Pulitzer Prize winner. Roger B. Linscott was selected.156 That even the editorial writers of small newspapers had the chance to win the Pulitzer Prize in this popular category was confirmed in 1974. The members of the jury were so impressed by one entry that they wrote in their report: "It is the unanimous recommendation of the jury that the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing be awarded to F. Oilman Spencer, editor of the Trentonian, Trenton, N.J., for his consistently courageous campaign to focus public attention on scandals in New Jersey state government. The jury was divided on its second choice but a majority favored the entry of the New York Times editorial board."157 In the face of this convincing report from the jury the Advisory Board accepted the suggested award winner and declared F. Oilman Spencer the victor.158 In 1975 the award was again given to a newspaper which could not be regarded as a big one. The jury members gave their first place to John D. Maurice of the Daily Mail from Charleston, W.Va., "for a courageous position on a delicate issue, argued in a distin150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 38. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 10, 1972, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 38. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 9,1973, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 38. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 7, 1974, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39.

148 guished style that set a high standard for the whole community."159 The second place went to Michael Pakenham of the Philadelphia Inquirer "for a powerful series, well-argued and with strong followthrough that demanded attention to an issue officials were trying to smother." Clayton Kirkpatrick and John McCutcheon of the Chicago Tribune took joint third place "for the threepart editorial 'Listen Mr. Nixon,' which asserted great influence on a wide public by virtue of independent judgment, a fine sense of timing, and vigorous writing."160 Summarizing, the jurors explained "that all three entries reflect work of the highest quality, and it is only reluctantly that we rank them individually."161 There were no objections by the Advisory Board to the first nomination in the jury report, and thus the award went to John D. Maurice "for his editorials about the Kanawha County Schoolbook controversy."162 The jury of 1976 had a clear favourite - Philip P. Kerby of the Los Angeles Times. "Mr. Kerby's well-reasoned and cogently presented editorials on a variety of related subjects," states the jury report, "clearly best met the Pulitzer criteria in all respects. He spoke both eloquently and forcefully on what should be matters of gravest concern not only to people in journalism, but to all citizens who give a damn about safeguarding their basic freedoms." Second and third places were given to Michael Pakenham of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Robert L. Bartley of the Wall Street Journal.1^ Philip P. Kerby was declared winner by the Advisory Board "for his editorials against government secrecy and judicial censorship."16^ The jury of 1977 also drew up a list of three: "1. Cardoza et al. - they waded into a tough issue, named names, didn't stop and were effective; 2. Boston Globe editors - they showed courage under pressure, wrote lucidly, displayed a calm tone during a time of great stress in a situation right at their own doorstep; 3. Ray Jenkins - he firmly and positively dealt with an issue with great emotional impact in his section of the nation."165 The Advisory Board was similarly impressed by the "Cardoza et al." entry, and gave the award to Warren L. Lerude, Foster Church and Norman F. Cardoza of the Reno Evening Gazette and Nevada State Journal "for editorials challenging the power of a local brothel keeper."166 Following two comparatively unproblematic years, complications arose again in 1978. The members of the jury had a very clear favorite in Paul Greenberg of the Commercial from Pine Bluff, Ark., who had already been awarded the Pulitzer Editorial Prize in 1969. "He took an essentially hometown subject - basic education in Pine Bluff schools -," states the jury report, "and translated it into a series with wide application. With vigor and wit he focused the attention of his community and state on some of the inadequacies of professional educators in meeting the needs of school children. The Pine Bluff school board's action to end 'social promotion' of students and to re-emphasize reading in the schools, indicated the impact of the editorials."167 The jury report also named several other finalists: Joan Beck of the Chicago Tribune and Meg Greenfield of the Washington Post in joint second place, Reese Cleghorn of the Detroit Free Press and Robert L. 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167

Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 7,1975, p. 1. Ibid. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 5, 1976, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 3, 1977, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 3, 1978, p. 1.

149

Hartley of the Wall Street Journal in fourth and fifth places.168 The Advisory Board did not decide in favor of Paul Greenberg, but declared Meg Greenfield the victor "for selected samples of her work."169 In 1979 the jury drew up a list of five finalists in alphabetical order: Philip R. Goldsmith of the Philadelphia Inquirer who "combined in an unusually effective way the finest attributes of editorial writing," defined as "clarity of style and purpose, ability to persuade, and firm grasp upon a situation that needs remedying;"170 Paul Greenberg of the Pine Bluff Commercial impressed the jury "with clarity, conviction, insight and exceptional mastery of language;" Edwin L. Hughes of the Milwaukee Journal was acclaimed for his writing "with skill, originality and fresh perspective;" Jack Rosenthal of the New York Times was praised by the jury with the words that his "editorials are as readable as they are provocative;" Edwin M. Yoder Jr. of the Washington Star was regarded as "totally, knowledgeably contemporary, yet seemingly, a pace apart. He writes of current national events with the confident understanding of the political specialist, the objectivity of the historian, and with masterful literary grace... Yoder Jr.'s judgments," the jury report concludes, "are powerful and on occasion rapier precise."171 The Pulitzer Prize Board, which from now on took the place of the former Advisory Board, was also convinced by the merits of Edwin M. Yoder Jr., and awarded him the prize for "a broad range of topics in his editorials."172 1980 was different from the preceding year in that the jurors drew up a strict list of finalists. They named Tom Dearmore of the San Francisco Examiner as "the unanimous choice of the Editorial Writing Committee for first place recommendation. Written on a wide diversity of subjects, these editorials, the committee felt, speak to the highest principles in graceful, literate and often quietly beautiful language."17·^ "With one abstention," the jury report continues, "the Wall Street Journal entry of Robert L. Bartley received with the Boston Globe entry - by Bruce C. Davidson, Thomas N. Oliphant and Anne C. Wyman - the next number of votes. The committee agreed that the Bartley choice recognizes the consistent high quality and clarity of this work." The Boston Globe entry showed "remarkable thorough research, followed by lucid analysis..."174 In a tie, the next number of jury votes was given to John Alexander of the Greensboro Daily News and to Alfred Ames and Joan Beck of the Chicago Tribune, putting them equal in this position.175 The Board decided in favor of Robert L. Bartley and awarded him the Pulitzer Editorial Prize.176 In 1981 the jury also reached a clear vote concerning their first nomination: It "was unanimous in recommending the entry of Kirk Scharfenberg of the Boston Globe as the outstanding example of distinguished editorial writing. In addition to meeting all the Pulitzer Prize criteria in an exceptional manner, the entry exhibited a depth of understanding and constructive moral leadership in confronting a grave community problem of particularly trying complexity."177 After this clear statement in favour of Kirk 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177

Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 6,1979, p. 1. Ibid., pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The 63rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 16, 1979, p. 3. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1980, p. 2. Ibid. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 4,1981, p. 2.

150

Scharfenberg, the report continues, "the jury's greatest difficulty was in making its second and third choices out of nine finalists. It recommends Jack Burby of the Los Angeles Times for second on the basis of superior writing style, an ability to analyze and comment on complex matters in a clear and helpful way, leavened by wit. Morris S. Thompson of the Miami Herald was the jury's third choice for thoughtful and restrained analysis, written clearly and showing great understanding... These editorials are calm and constructive..."178 The Pulitzer Prize Board found that it could not accept any of these suggestions. Neither could it offer an alternative winner, so that it decided on "no award" in the editorial category.179 In 1982 the jury was able to select three finalists, but no single finalist was unanimously prefered by the jurors. The jury report begins with the entry of Richard McCord of the Santa Fe Reporter: "Four of the five judges express first-place preference for this gutzy, eloquent weekly editor for his forceful and consistent editorial expression on a broad range of topics important to his community. The Pulitzer Prize should take note of its Davids as well as its Goliaths..."180 Then, the report mentions Joseph Stroud of the Detroit Free Press, but without specific reference to second place. He is described as "a thorough-going professional who takes note of national issues but superbly localizes them. A courageous performance against the backdrop of one of the country's more depressed economies. A bastion of good editorial writing."181 Finally the report mentions Jack Rosenthal of the New York Times, whose work is characterized briefly as "brilliant writing of superb essays on the paramount national issues. No keener eloquence was offered in the 78 entries in this category. "18^ The Board, however, did not accept the jury's first place suggestion, but decided in favour of Jack Rosenthal for his "editorials over the last year" which "addressed a wide range of concerns."183 The jury members of 1983 decided to draw up a list of three finalists in alphabetical order, with Ralph B. Bennett and Jonathan Freedman of the San Diego Tribune in first place "for a series of editorials on illegal immigration... The editorials were carefully researched and written with exceptional clarity and persuasiveness."184 Second place was given to the Editorial Board of the Miami Herald "for a series of editorials which strongly opposed the Reagan administration's policy of detaining illegal Haitian immigrants indefinitely in a desolate, barbed-wire detention center..."185 Finally the report mentions Marvin Seid of the Los Angeles Times "for a particularly well-written series of editorials commenting on the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and subsequent developments. Mr. Seid provided Times readers with a carefully-researched, calm perspective on the violent events..."186 In the opinion of the Pulitzer Prize Board, the group-work by the Editorial Board of the Miami Herald was the best entry, so that this newspaper got the award. The members of the winning editorial board were Jim Hampton, editor, Joanna Wragg, associate editor, and staff writers Robert Rankin, Joe Oglesby and Robert Sanchez together with editorial cartoonist Jim Morin.187 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187

Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 2, 1982, p. 1. Ibid. Ibid. Columbia University, The 66th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1982, p. 4. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 9, 1983, p. 1. Ibid. Ibid. Columbia University, The 67th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 18, 1983, p. 4.

151

In 1984 the jurors also had to deal with entries by which several editorial writers of one newspaper were jointly nominated. The report states: "This committee strongly recommends the San Diego Tribune's editorial writers - Ralph Bennett, Jonathan Freedman and Lynne Carrier - for the Pulitzer Prize... for exceptionally strong pieces on immigration problems and policies. They offered very solid and morally persuasive arguments on an issue that is clearly controversial in that community. The editorials were solidly researched, clearly written, offered both local and national perspectives, and spell out solutions."188 This entry, which covered a subject similar to that of the same newspaper's exhibit from the year before, was followed by an entry by Lois Wille of the Chicago Sun-Times: Her editorials "were quite literally textbook examples of the editorial writer's craft. They were succinct, notable in their clarity, and offered solutions."189 For third place the jury report mentions the editorials by Albert Scardino of the Georgia Gazette from Savannah: "The editorials... were the unconventional offerings of a spunky writer in the best tradition of a small, fighting newspaper."190 The articles from the small weekly newspaper also appealed to the Pulitzer Prize Board and it gave the Pulitzer Prize to Albert Scardino "for his series of editorials on various local and state matters" of 1983.191 The 1985 jury was expressly restricted - as all other juries were, from now on - by the wording on the form to be used for the report, which stated: "Please list your three nominations for the prize in your category in alphabetical order by newspaper... It is not a part of the jury's charge to offer its preferences among its three nominees."192 Thus future juries would only be allowed to select three finalists, and would not be permitted to express preference for any specific candidate. For the jury in 1985 this meant that - in order to comply with the aforementioned stipulations - it would have to name three newspapers, and that the names of their editorial writers would appear after the name of the newspaper. The three jury suggestions were: Orlando Sentinel - Jane Healy; Philadelphia Daily News - Richard Aregood; Raleigh News & Observer - David E. Gillespie. While the editorials by Jane Healy were characterized briefly as "vigorous..., knowledgeable, precise and effective," Richard Aregood was praised for his "clear message, and he delivers it in writing his readers can't ignore;" David E. Gillespie's texts were, the report stated, "wise, concise and persuasively crafted."193 The Board awarded the prize to Richard Aregood "for his editorials on a variety of subjects."194 In 1986 and in the following years, the jurors were also bound by the regulation of drawing up a list of three, unranked nominations. In the first year of the new procedure the jury presented their three selected finalists very briefly: The work of Jack Fuller of the Chicago Tribune was judged "powerful writing," while Paul Greenberg of the Pine Bluff Commercial "celebrates humanity" in his editorials; a team from the JournalGazette of Fort Wayne, Ind., consisting of Larry Hayes, David Berry and Barbara O. Morrow, were praised for "community leadership on a socially significant unpopular issue."19^ The Pulitzer Prize Board chose Jack Fuller as award winner "for his editorials on constitutional issues."196 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196

Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 7, 1984, p. 1. Ibid. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 5, 1985, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 5,1986, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39.

152

The jurors of 1987 named as their three finalists: Jonathan Freedman of the San Diego Tribune for promoting immigration reform; Daniel P. Henninger of the Wall Street Journal for editorials on medical and ethical issues; Bernard L. Stein of the Riverdale Press for his editorials in various campaign issues affecting the Bronx, N.Y., community.197 Jonathan Freedman was made winner by the Board "for his editorials urging passage of the first major immigration reform act in thirty-four years."198 The jury of 1988 presented the following list of three: Joe Dolman of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution for his editorials on the rights of Cuban refugees imprisoned in Atlanta Federal Penitentiary; Jane Healy of the Orlando Sentinel for her series of editorials protesting overdevelopment of Florida's Orange County; Bernard L. Stein of the Riverdale Press from Bronx, N.Y., for his editorials on a variety of local and national issues.199 The Board selected Jane Healy "for her series of editorials protesting overdevelopment of Florida's Orange County."200 The five jurors who gathered in spring, 1989, to discuss editorial entries from the preceding year, selected the following group of finalists: Bill Bishop of the Herald-Leader from Lexington, Ky., for an editorial campaign against broadform deeds in the state; the Editorial Board of the New York Times for a series of editorials about the coming generation of children threatened by poverty; Lois Wille of the Chicago Tribune for her editorials that treated and analyzed very explosive issues in Chicago.201 She was the winner and earned the Pulitzer Prize "for her editorials on a variety of local issues."202 In 1990 David C. Anderson of the New York Times was mentioned first by the jury "for.... rich writing on two series of editorials focusing on two of New York City's, and society's, greatest social problems: homelessness and drug abuse." Next was Thomas Hylton of the Pottstown Mercury "for a well-crafted and persuasive series of editorials on the preservation of farmland and open space in rural Pennsylvania." Leonard Morris of the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel came third "for a unique approach to a complex and very emotional issue - abortion."203 The winner was Thomas J. Hylton of the Pottstown Mercury "for his editorials about a local bond issue for the preservation of farmland and other open space in rural Pennsylvania."204 The editorial jury of 1991 put a team of editorial writers of the Birmingham News first in its report for an exploration of "the enduring poverty and near-bondage of poor blacks and whites in Alabama." Next came Seth Lipsky of the Forward of New York City "for writing from a numerically small community with a global vision and deep historical perception." Martin F. Nolan of the Boston Globe followed third. "His editorial series," the jury report states, "focuses on what is wrong with American politics in a memorable writing style that often borders on lyrical."205 The Board decided in favor of the team of Ron Casey, Harold Jackson and Joey Kennedy of the Birmingham (Ala.) News "for their editorial campaign analyzing inequities in Alabama's tax system, and proposing needed reforms."206 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206

Cf. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 3,1987, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39. Cf. Editorial Writing Jury Report, February 2, 1988, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39. Cf. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 1, 1989, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 7,1990, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 6, 1991, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 39.

153

Rather short remarks with regard to the quality of the editorial finalists were made in the 1992 jury report. Henry Bryan of the Philadelphia Inquirer was praised for editorials about "winning a once-hopeless battle to preserve a major transit system." Robert J. Gaydos of the Times Herald-Record had presented "classic local/regional editorials with universal application. No-nonsense opinion, a telling blend of outrage and courage," the jury report adds. Maria Henson of the Lexington Herald-Leader had contributed "a yearlong series of passionate, damning editorials, she awakened Kentucky to the truths and consequences of wife beating."207 The prize was awarded to Maria Henson of the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader "for her editorials about battered women in Kentucky, which focused statewide attention on the problem and prompted significant reforms."208 In 1993 a Dallas Morning News editorial staff was on the jury's list for "exposing for its readers the long-neglected problems of West Dallas, an extremely poor and crisisridden section of the city's metropolitan area." Larry Dale Keeling of the Lexington Herald-Leader was mentioned next for a "well-argued campaign" about "the depth of corruption in the Kentucky Legislature and then pressing reluctant lawmakers for significant reforms." In a series Robert M. Landauer of the Portland Oregonian had conducted a "campaign to discredit the emotional issues in a volatile statewide effort to restrict the rights of gays and lesbians in Oregon."209 The Pulitzer Prize Board did not find any of the three exhibits worthy of the prize so that "no award"210 was given in this category. The editorial board of the Birmingham News was first on the jury's list in 1994. The editorials of this team had "awakened the public to the way Alabama - partly because of poverty but also because of greed and racism - had systematically failed to invest adequately in public education." Bruce Dold of the Chicago Tribune "in a focused editorial campaign over a one-month period" had discussed a special problem of children's safety. Third on the jury's list was James R. Montgomery of the Shreveport Journal. He had argued persuasively, the jurors stated, "that we should consider the unthinkable legalize drugs so as to reduce the crime Americans witness daily."211 The prize was awarded to R. Bruce Dold of the Chicago Tribune "for his series of editorials deploring the murder of a three-year-old boy by his abusive mother and decrying the Illinois child welfare system."212 In 1995, again, a team came onto the short-list. It was the editorial staff of the Des Moines Register which had presented "exemplars of elegant writing" to "create a major sense of unity and pride in lowans." Jeffrey Good of the St. Petersburg Times had "showed how families were destroyed by the estate system, how living trusts were often abused, and how even when fraud was proven, victims did not get the repayments promised them." Editorials by Baily Thomson, Carol McPhail and David Thomasson of the Mobile (Al.) Press Register contained "a wonderful blend of depth, perspective and graceful writing to make a compelling case for revising Alabama's antiquated 1901 constitution."213 The winner was Jeffrey Good of the St. Petersburg Times "for his editorial campaign urging reform of Florida's probate system for settling estates."214 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214

Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 4,1992, p. 1. Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7,1992, p. 4. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 3, 1993, p. 1. Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 13, 1993, p. 4. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 2,1994, p. 1. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1994, p. 4. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 7,1995, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 18,1995, p. 5.

154 The jury of 1996 first mentioned Daniel P. Henninger of the Wall Street Journal on its list. His "wide-ranging editorials," the jurors stated, were "precise, informed, structured, clear in purpose and in force." An "environmental series" by Robert B. Semple Jr., of the New York Times, was "a primary example of the power of editorials to turn an issue in the public interest by identifying and clarifying the public interest." N. Don Wycliff of the Chicago Tribune was represented in the competition by "a significant editorial series on the issue of welfare."215 The Pulitzer Prize Board's favorite was the New York Times exhibit so that the award went to Robert B. Semple Jr., "for his editorials on environmental issues. "216 In 1997 Margaretta A. Downey of the Poughkeepsie Journal was on the jury's list for a "series of editorials pressing for an agenda of economic and civic renewal." Michael G. Gartner of the Daily Tribune of Ames, Iowa, brought "a passion to topics that are seemingly routine, but deeply affect the lives of his readers. His work," the jury report adds, "is in the finest tradition of the community watchdog, delivered in a distinct, commonsense Midwestern voice." Finally, Peter Milius of the Washington Post was praised "for his powerful dissection of federal welfare reform legislation and unashamed advocacy on behalf of the poor and powerless."217 The Pulitzer Prize went to Michael G. Gartner of the Daily Tribune "for his common sense editorials about issues, deeply affecting the lives of people in his community."218 An exhibit by George B. Pyle of the Salina (Ka.) Journal was praised by the 1998 jury as "an outstanding example of editorial writing typified by clearness of style, moral purpose, sound reasoning, most certainly, with the power to influence public opinion." Next on the list was an exhibit by Bernard L. Stein of the Riverdale (N.Y.) Press. About a decade ago the offices of the weekly paper had been destroyed by fire "for an editorial defending Salman Rushdie's right to write what he did and for others to read it." This time, the Riverdale Press presented editorials "in clear and persuasive language" on a number of topics. Clint Talbott of the Colorado Daily from Boulder was mentioned for a "powerful series of editorials about a rape case."219 The award was given to Bernard L. Stein of the Riverdale Press "for his graceful-written editorials on politics and other issues affecting New York City residents."220 In 1999 the jurors praised an exhibit by Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post, because he "repeatedly placed human rights issues in the larger context of political and economic forces." Lawrence C. Levy of Newsday in his editorials had made "a highly complicated issue simple." The Editorial Board of the New York Daily News, consisting of Michael Goodwin, Brian Kates, Karen Zautyk, Karen Hunter, Jonathan Capehart, Michael Aronson and Alex Storozynski, had undertaken "an enterprising editorial investigation" and "brought to light how a national historic treasure... was being allowed to deteriorate."221 The award was bestowed on "the Editorial Board of the Daily News" rather than upon the seven journalists, "for its effective campaign to rescue Harlem's Apollo Theatre from the financial mismanagement that threatened the landmark's survival."222 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222

Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 6, 1996, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 9, 1996, p. 5. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 5,1997, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1997, p. 5. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 4,1998, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 14, 1998, p. 4. Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 3, 1999, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1999, p. 4.

155 John C. Bersia of the Orlando Sentinel was praised by the jury in 2000 for a "clearly written, passionate, people-driven expose" of widespread problems in the state of Florida. An exhibit by Philip Kennicott of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch contained a "carefully reasoned" editorial campaign against the passage of a proposition to legally allow Missouri residents to carry concealed weapons. Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post was represented on the jury's list for "authoritative editorials on... Kosovo."223 The Pulitzer Prize Board bestowed the award upon John C. Bersia of the Orlando Sentinel "for his passionate editorial campaign attacking predatory lending practices in the state (of Florida), which prompted changes in local lending regulations."224 In summarizing the function of editorials, one of the award-winners in this prize category, Ralph McGill, once posed the question: "If one looks into the past for our editorial giants," why were these "the great editors? The answer, of course, is obvious. They spoke and wrote in the context of their time and day. And they had something to say. And what they had to say met something in the emotions, the dreams, the ambitions of their span of years. What they wrote and spoke caused people fervently to say, 'Amen,' or to shout an angry 'No.' They reached people. They participated in the lives of the people of their years. They were aggressive... they brought controversy to their pages. As we read these giants of our past, most of the issues which so concerned them are merely pages or paragraphs in our history books... A study of the Pulitzer Prizes in editorial writing... will confirm this."22^

8.2

Commentary Writing Award

Two decades after the establishment of the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing, the jurors of that category ran into classification problems with regard to entries presented to them for evaluation. This was because, besides the classic editorials, the jurors were increasingly confronted with various opinion articles published in newspapers, which either appeared beside the "real" editorials, on the editorial pages, or were published on the opposite pages, the so-called op-ed pages. The opinion articles were normally signed with the full name of the author, who, on the other hand, did not necessarily belong to the circle of regular staff members of the paper. The members of the Pulitzer Prize Editorial jury in 1933 were obviously confronted with this problem for the first time. Thus, the question arose "whether the prize might be properly given to a writer not a regular member of an editorial staff who carries on editorial discussion in syndicated articles published as his personal views and not as the expression of any newspaper's corporate opinion."226 It was agreed not to treat these named articles as editorials in the future. Since this kind of column was repeatedly presented to the Pulitzer jurors in the editorial category, it often became a problem because it did not match with the criteria for the awarding of the editorial awards. This was also the case in 1956, when the editorial jurors asked the Advisory Board, "that the matter of nominations of 'columns' be incorporated in the formal rules. We believe," states the jury report, "that successive juries have discarded columnists' work 223 Editorial Writing Jury Report, February 29,2000, pp. 1 ff. 224 Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 10, 2000, p. 4. 225 Ralph McGill, Editorial Awards, in: Columbia Library Columns (New York), Vol. VI/No. 3, May, 1957, pp. 23 f. 226 Editorial Writing Jury Report, March 15, 1933, p. 1.

156 on the theory that these are not editorials, even if they appear as editorials in publications other than newspapers. Perhaps a special classification for columnists will be considered advisable."227 But the proposal made to the final awarding committees remained without response for some time. It would take half a decade until this point was considered seriously and a decision was made to establish another category for opinion-journalism beside the editorial award category, a category fixed upon commentary.228 At the end of March 1969, an Ad Hoc Committee suggested, among other things, the establishment of such a prize category to the Advisory Board, thus speaking for "a place for column writers, whether local, regional or syndicated. It would invite and encourage entries from areas that represent some of the best of American journalism..."229 Already in May, it says in a corresponding letter-document, "a number of Board members expressed interest in a new Pulitzer Prize for criticism or commentary..."230 Further talks about this suggestion finally led to the concretion of this idea by the Advisory Board in early December 1969, and in a press-release it was stated: "A new Pulitzer Prize for criticism or commentary in American newspapers has been established and will be awarded for the first time in 1970... Material published in 1969 is eligible... In the form approved by the Advisory Board it is 'for distinguished criticism or commentary.' This includes all forms of critical writing, columns on public affairs and other forms of commentary except for editorial writing, for which a prize already exists."231 So a new Pulitzer award came into existence which would be awarded alternatively for "criticism or commentary." The Pulitzer Prize office was forced in early January 1970 to give some additional information: "Several requests," it was stated, "have been made... for some legalistic interpretation of what is meant by 'criticism or commentary' in the new Pulitzer Prize Category... Obviously, writers of criticism and commentators or columnists in all fields would come under this heading."232 In spite of these explanations, the narrow definition of the new prize category remained open enough, so that the jury members who had to decide for the first time about the awarding of this prize, were forced to bring about a clarification by themselves. "The five members of this panel," it is stated in the report, "concluded that this award - especially in its first presentation should go to someone distinguished for writing broadly in the field of public affairs..."233 The 1970 jury finally concluded that, in the area of distinguished commentary writing, "the award should go to one of the big top three in the field of general commentary," and they nominated them in the following order: "1. Marquis Childs... This man's high quality of work and his own distinguished standing and reputation need no documentation here. 2. Mary McGrory... This talented writer's work is well known and deserving of highest consideration this year as it would have been for some years past, had there been such a Pulitzer category previously. 3. Mike Royko... This provocative columnist may represent the new wave of columnists who reflect the social discontent of our time."23^ The Advisory Board accepted the first-place nomination on the suggestion-list and gave 227 Editorial Writing Jury Report, undated (March 1956), p. 2. 228 Cf. Heinz-D. Fischer/Erika J. Fischer (Eds.), The Pulitzer Prize Archive, Vol. 5: Social Commentary 1969-1989, Munich - London - New York - Paris 1991, XLVI + 400 pp. 229 Memo to the Advisory Board, April 7,1969, appendix, p. 3. 230 Letter to the Counsel for Columbia University, May 28, 1969, pp. 1 f. 231 Columbia University, A new Pulitzer Prize for criticism or commentary..., New York, December 3, 1969, pp. If. 232 The Pulitzer Prize Office, Memorandum on the new Pulitzer Prize, January 10, 1970, p. 1. 233 Criticism or Commentary Jury Report, March 6, 1970, p. 1. 234 Ibid.

157

the new award to Marquis W. Childs of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch "for distinguished commentary" during the preceding year.235 At the same time, however, a prize for distinguished criticism was also awarded. Alluding to the problem that the jurors were dealing with virtually two separate journalistic fields, the jury report states clearly: "We see the possibility that, with the growing 'cultural explosion1 and the development of more special talent in that field of writing, the Advisory Board may well decide - even five years from now - to establish another award for specialized critical writing. "23(> The problem of the factual incompatibility of the areas of commentary and criticism under one category-'roof also occupied the jury of 1971 which stressed in its report: "The panel considers the inclusion of both criticism and commentary in a single category too broad an approach, forcing a choice between two different writing styles and treatments, a mixture of apples and oranges. It recommends separate categories for each."23^ In the area of commentary, the 1971 jury came to the following list of suggestions: (1.) William A. Caldwell of the Record, Hackensack, New Jersey, "for his perceptive thinking, his incisive comment, the clarity of his prose and the spectrum of his subject matter." (2.) Tom Fitzpatrick of the Chicago Sun-Times, "for his powerful style, laced with authority, which takes you up with the action and almost commands the reader to stay through to the thought-provoking conclusion. He is smooth and people-oriented, a brilliant writer regardless of subject." (3.) James M. Perry of the National Observer, "whose political commentary is highly personal in style, reflecting a warmth for people and a broad perspective of American politics."238 The Advisory Board gave the award to William A. Caldwell "for his commentary in his daily column."239 The jury members of 1972 also stated at the beginning of their report: "After reading 73 entries which ranged through local columns, human interest, politics, Washington correspondence and theatre, art and architectural criticism, the jury found it impossible to judge 'comment' and 'criticism' against one another."240 Within the commentary section, it was unanimously voted for one columnist of the Chicago Daily News, Mike Royko. "Royko's strength," the report says literally, "first of all, is his unusual ability as a writer. Added to that, his incisive commentary is based on good, hard-nosed reporting. He is an example of what all of us would like to see appearing in our own newspapers. His commentary is always clear and relevant to the average reader, and it is obviously fearless."241 Again, the Advisory Board accepted the jury's suggestion and awarded the commentary prize to Mike Royko "for his columns."242 In 1973, finally, the award was split into two separate categories, called Commentary and Criticism, and handled by two separate juries.243 The jury solely responsible for the area of commentary stated in its report to the Advisory Board: "Three nominations received very strong support from the jurors. There was not unanimous agreement on the order of preference. On a weighted vote, the entry from David Broder of the Washington Post received the highest total, followed by entries from Bob Greene of the Chicago 235 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 32. 236 Criticism or Commentary Jury Report, March 6, 1970, pp. 1 f. 237 Criticism or Commentary Jury Report, March 5, 1971, p. 2.

238 Ibid., p. 1. 239 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 32. 240 Criticism or Commentary Jury Report, March 10, 1972, p. 1.

241 Ibid. 242 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 32. 243 Columbia University, The 56th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, May 1, 1972, p. 4.

158 Sun-Times and L. T. Anderson of the Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette. We suggest that all three candidates receive serious consideration from the Advisory Board."244 The members of the Board voted in favor of David S. Broder who received the Pulitzer Commentary award "for his columns."245 In the year 1974, the commentary jury recommended in its report "that the Advisory Board grant the Pulitzer Prize in this category to Mr. Edwin A. Roberts Jr., columnist for the National Observer. The jury was deeply impressed with Mr. Roberts' range of subject matter, the high quality of his prose, and the incisiveness of his commentary. While the final vote of the jury was not unanimous," it says further in the report, "the minority of two who voted otherwise felt the Advisory Board should know there was no basic disagreement with the majority judgment, but rather a different shading in judgmental factors. The runner-up candidate in the jury's voting was Mr. Patrick Owens, columnist for Newsday. All the members of the jury were taken with Mr. Owens' extremely forceful style, by which he expresses his views with great vigor, and with the clarity of his work. In the final jury voting, Mr. Roberts received three votes for first place and two for second place. Mr. Owens won one first-place vote, three for second place, and one for third. The third-placed entry was that of Mr. Vernon Jarrett, columnist for the Chicago Tribune..."246 In spite of the narrow majority for the first-placed, the Advisory Board accepted this jury's vote and gave the Pulitzer Prize to Edwin A. Roberts Jr. "for his commentary on public affairs."247 The jury of 1975 wrote only a short report, in which it unanimously recommended "Mary McGrory, columnist of the Washington Star-News, for the Pulitzer Prize. The jury found her work rich in insights and forceful in analysis. Her writing," it further says, "is perceptive, her reporting vigorous. Her wit and cogency lead the reader to fresh perspectives and a sharpened understanding of the national events. The second choice is Peter Lisagor of the Chicago Daily News, the third choice is Russell Baker of the New York Times."2^ The Advisory Board followed the suggestion and gave the award to Mary McGrory, the first woman award-winner within this category, "for her commentary on public affairs."249 Similarly concise, the 1976 jury expressed the unanimous recommendation of "Walter Wellesley (Red) Smith, sports columnist of the New York Times... Mr. Smith's work... is marked not only by the professional craft of the specialist but also by a humor and a humanism that bring universal interest to that speciality... Other nominees considered in the final voting were Joseph Kraft of the Chicago Sun-Times, and Russell Baker of the New York Times."250 The Advisory Board followed the jury's vote and declared Walter W. Smith the award-winner "for his commentary on sports."251 No definite choice was made by the jury in 1977 that recommended to the Advisory Board two alternative award-winners: Victor Zorza, syndicated columnist, and George F. Will of the Washington Post Writers Group. "Our final ballot," it says in the report, "split three to two in favor of Zorza, but we feel that either nominee would be a distinguished 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251

Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 9, 1973, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 33. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 8, 1974, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 33. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 7, 1975, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 33. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1976, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 33.

159

choice for the Pulitzer Prize... Victor Zorza brings exceptional insight and analytical power to a field of endeavor which is exceedingly complex and often mysterious... George F. Will combines a scholarly approach to commentary with wry humor. His writing style is clear and to the point. His arguments and analysis are forceful and easy to understand..."252 Two other nominees ranked highly in the jury's voting, although significantly behind Zorza and Will. They were James M. Perry of the National Observer and Roger Simon of the Chicago Sun-Times.253 The Advisory Board decided in favor of George F. Will and conferred the award "for distinguished comment on a variety of topics."254 In 1978 the jury nominated three finalists in the following order: "1. Gary Deeb, television critic, Chicago Tribune. Deeb is a trenchant and incisive writer who uses his position... for commentary that transcends the medium in dealing with major issues of the times... 2. Mike Royko, Chicago Daily News. Royko is the voice of the little man, raised against the insensitivities and injustices of bureaucracy and society... He is a great writer who deals with simple language to assault bigotry and foolishness wherever they are found. 3. John Leonard, New York Times. A superb stylist, he offers penetrating insights into the problems so many of us witness or experience in the America of the 1970s. He touches on the loneliness, the pathos of life in the big city with a distinctively literate approach. Essentially private thoughts are presented with compelling logic and flair. He is a particularly personal journalist whose exquisite style insulates him from the maudlin and the sentimental."255 The Advisory Board, however, did not decide in favor of any of the jury's three finalists, but gave the award to William Safire, columnist of the New York Times, "for commentary on the Bert Lance affair" in the year before.256 In the awarding year 1979, the jury even decided to draw up a list of four finalists, ranked in order of preference: 1. Vermont C. Royster of the Wall Street Journal: "The panel felt he had much to say, said it gracefully and in an unforced style." 2. Michael Novak of the Washington Star. "His scholarship and freshness impressed the panel." 3. Russell Baker of the New York Times: "While famed as a humorist, he makes incisive points with or without satire. He is one of our era's greatest social critics without many of his readers being aware of it." 4. Joseph Kraft of the Chicago Sun-Times: "He leads the nation in identifying and understanding the movement of Islam Fundamentalism moving through the Middle East." The jury was also impressed by the commentary entries of five other journalists,257 so that altogether nine commentators where put on the short-list. This time the Board, again, did not accept the first candidate, but at least it decided in favor of a person on the jury's list: The Pulitzer Prize went to Russell Baker for "his Observer' column."258 In 1980 the awarding remained without problems. The jury drew up the following list of three candidates in alphabetical order without any further explanations regarding content: Ellen H. Goodman (The Boston Globe), Richard Reeves (Universal Press Syndicate), Carl T. Rowan (Chicago Sun-Times).259 The Pulitzer Prize Board selected Ellen 252 253 254 255 256 257 258

Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1977, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 33. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 3, 1978, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 33. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 7, 1979, p. 1. Columbia University, Backgrounds and additional information about the winners of the 1979 Pulitzer Prizes, New York, April 16, 1979, p. 5. 259 Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1980, p. 1.

160 H. Goodman "whose column on social issues appeared in 200 newspapers across the country."260 The commentary jury of 1981 also came to a suggestion-list of three, which contained these journalists in alphabetical order: Dave Anderson (New York Times), Richard Cohen (Washington Post), Howard Rosenberg (Los Angeles Times).261 The jurors stated in their report, "that by a majority vote, it regards the entry of Howard Rosenberg... as meriting the top ranking... Mr. Rosenberg's body of work is favored partly because he is involved in an area of major importance to society, that of the coverage of television... The Nominators feel," it says at a later point of the jury's report, "that the work of Dave Anderson... deserves a strong second ranking... The third nominee of the jury is the work of Richard Cohen... His is the field of the generalist...," so that the jury's suggestion was: "The work of Mr. Rosenberg, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Cohen, in that order."262 The Board decided in favor of the man placed second, and thus Dave Anderson received the Pulitzer Prize "for his commentary on sports."263 The 1982 jury for commentary submitted the following three nominations in alphabetical order for the Board's consideration: Art Buchwald of the Los Angeles Times Syndicate: "This was one of two co-leaders in the final vote of the jury. His incisive observations of the American scene inspired thinking on relevant issues. A master satirist, he focused public attention on important matters of public policy with imaginative flair and wit. He informed, entertained, and provoked in a style that had no parallel in the 158 entries examined by the jury." - William Greider of the Washington Post: "While this entry did not rate nearly as high as the two other nominations, it was a strong contender for the fluent writing and clear thought on many of the year's most complex issues..." William Raspberry of the Washington Post: "This entry emerged as a co-leader in the jury's vote. The columns impressed for their original point of view, for the avoidance of stereotyped patterns, and for their contribution to the understanding of the complexities of today's social issues."264 The Board decided to give the award to Art Buchwald calling him "an American Institution," who, in his column, "has subjected this country's current social and political concerns."265 Again, a suggestion of three finalists was made by the 1983 jury. It had "decided that David Rossie, columnist for the Binghamton, N.Y., Press, is the top choice in this category. He is followed by Ross Mackenzie, editorial page editor of the Richmond, Va., News Leader, and Claude Sitton, editorial director of the Raleigh, N.C., News and Observer. While all three entrants were outstanding," it says further in the report, "the jury felt, in a close vote, that Mr. Rossie exhibited the most original and innovative concepts on his subjects... With further discussion, the jury voted unanimously for Mr. Rossie. The jury felt that Mr. Rossie is an innovative, clear and concise writer. He exhibits a sensitivity for his subjects and the readers... Mr. Mackenzie has an excellent writing style. He is direct, forceful and graceful... He has the ability to capture the imagination of the reader. Mr. Sitton shows an extraordinary understanding of issues, nationally and locally. He is clear, forceful and convincing... He shows a great sensitivity 260 Columbia University, Backgrounds and additional information about the winners of the 1980 Pulitzer Prizes, New York, April 14,1980, p. 5. 261 Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 3,1981, p. 1. 262 Ibid., p. 2. 263 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 33. 264 Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 2, 1982, p. 1. 265 Columbia University, Backgrounds of and additional information about the winners of the 1982 Pulitzer Prizes, New York, April 12, 1982, p. 5.

161

ART BUCHWALD· Gos Angeles 3fane6*March 19.1981

Anchors Away The United States is going into a crash program to build up its military might. We want to be in a position to match the Soviets on land, on sea and in the air. There is only one problem. Once we get all the new helicopters, planes and ships built, where do we find the people to man them? The Navy, for example, does not have enough crewmen to handle the ships they're supposed to keep on the high seas now. If we take the "New Jersey" and "Iowa" battleships out of mothballs as Defense Secretary Weinberger wants to do, this is what might happen: "Captain, as admiral of the North Atlantic Forces, I t u r n over the command of the battleship New Jersey to you and your fine crew." "Thank you, sir. Where's the crew?" "They're standing over there." "Six men for a battleship?" "That's all the bureau of personnel could spare. I asked for 10 but they said they needed the others to man a missile cruiser that will escort you at sea." "Begging your pardon, sir, and meaning no disrespect, but a battleship calls for a complement of 4,000 men." "I'm aware of that, Captain. But we're going to have to make it with what we've got. I'm sure with proper training your six-man crew can do the job. They'll just have to double up on their watches." "You actually want me to take this battleship out of harbor with six people?" "Captain, may I remind you that getting command of a battleship is one of the highest honors that the Navy can bestow on one of its officers." "I'm aware of the honor, sir, and it's been my dream to command a ship like the New Jersey. But I always thought when I got one this size, the crew would go with it." "I assure you, Captain, once you get the hang of it you'll be amazed

how few people it takes to run a battleship. We've put in an automatic steering system, so you won't need anyone at the wheel, and all your meals have been prepackaged so you won't require a mess crew, and the engines have been fitted with computers so you won't need anybody in the boiler rooms. And when you press this button you can fire your guns fore and aft. So actually the only thing your crew will have to do is scrape and paint the ship when it pulls into port." "It sounds very reassuring, Admiral. I imagine my first job will be to brief the officers." "Officers? You're it." "You mean I have to eat by myself?" "Don't feel bad. Your only chief petty officer has to eat by himself also." "What are my orders, sir?" "You're to seek out the enemy and' destroy him at will. But first check with Washington before you engage in action." "By radio?" "We couldn't spare a radioman. Here is a bag of dimes. There's a pay phone on the bridge." "Thank you, sir. That's very generous of you." "Money isn't our problem, Captain. We have more of it than we know what to do with. Our problem is that the more ships the Defense Department wants to put to sea, the more we have to stretch our manpower. After I leave here 1 have to «commission the aircraft carrier Oriskany with three squadrons of Grumman fighters." "That should beef up the fleet." "Not quite. They only gave me two pilots."

"Would you like to address the crew, sir?" "No, Captain, I believe you better pull up anchor right away before they find out they're the only ones on board. We can't afford to have any of them jump ship."

Pulitzer Prize for Commentary Writing, 1982

162 for his environment and society in general."266 Once again, the Advisory Board did not follow the jury's first suggestion, but gave the award to the man placed third, Claude Sitton, for "his column" which appeared every Sunday.267 During the selection procedure of the Pulitzer Commentary Prize in 1984, the members of the jury agreed on the following list of three: Arnold Rosenfeld of the Dayton Daily News: "His column frames large issues in telling personal terms and treats personal issues in sometimes tender, sometimes humorous but always insightful ways. Through his compelling, flowing style, he makes a changing world more understandable for his readers." - Vermont C. Royster of the Wall Street Journal: "He is a master of language who, through his unparalleled use of the essay form, clarifies the major issues of a disordered world. He has the rare ability to distill essences with a judgment seasoned by years of experience and of learning." - Dorothy Storck of the Philadelphia Inquirer: "The jury's first choice, she addresses 'the sharp edges' of everyday life in a vivid, provocative way. She uses her extraordinary reporting and writing talents to offer her readers truthful, moving commentary on life in urban America that was unmatched by any other entry."268 In spite of these merits of Dorothy Storck, the Board decided in favor of another candidate on the jury's list, namely of Vermont C. Royster, who had already won a Pulitzer Editorial Prize in the early fifties.269 This time Royster won the commentary award "for his weekly column 'Thinking Things Over.' "27° When the members of the 1985 commentary jury gathered at Columbia University in order to discuss the award-winner preselection in early March, they were confronted with an innovation in the procedure: For the first time in the history of the Pulitzer Prizes, a formula for the report which contained the following imprint was handed over to all juries: "Please list your three nominations for the prize in your category in alphabetical order by newspaper. In the space provided beneath each identification line, please supply a brief statement as to why the jury believes that this particular entry deserves to receive the Pulitzer Prize in this category. It is not a part of the jury's charge to offer its preferences among its three nominees."271 In accordance with these handicaps, the 1985 report contained only the following short statements about the three finalists: Martin Nolan, The Boston Globe: "Mr. Nolan's column gained force from their immediacy and high reportial content, making all the more remarkable his literary finesse." - Molly Ivins, Dallas Times-Herald: "Ms. Ivins' style is exceptionally lively and forceful, bringing out the full color of Texas politics and a range of other topics." - Murray Kempton, Newsday: "Mr. Kempton's columns are distinguished by originality of both thought and style. They are both literate and learned."272 The Advisory Board nominated Murray Kempton out of this group as the Pulitzer commentary award-winner "for witty and insightful reflection on public issues."273 In 1986 the same nomination principle as in the preceding year was practised, so that the jury presented the following three finalists: Jimmy Breslin of the New York Daily 266 Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 8, 1983, pp. 1 f. 267 Columbia University, Additional information about the winners of the 1983 Pulitzer Prizes, New York, April 18.1983, p. 5. 268 Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 7, 1984, p. 1. 269 Cf. Heinz-D. Fischer/Erika J. Fischer (Eds.), The Pulitzer Prize Archive, Vol. 4: Political Editorial 1916-1988, op. cii.,pp. 173 ff. 270 Columbia University, Additional information about the winners of the 1984 Pulitzer Prizes, New York, April 16.1984, p. 6. 271 Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 5, 1985, p. 1. 272 Ibid. 273 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 33.

163 News: "His columns combine powerful reporting with a passion to defend the little guy in New York against the rich, the powerful, and the corrupt..." - Joseph Kraft of the Los Angeles Times Syndicate: He "was a diligent reporter who brought to public issues a rare intellectual intensity, an intensity that was reflected in his vigorous writing style. Few journalists of his time were so independent, so well-connected and so husted by sources and readers... He elevated commentator's role in American life. He deserves the Pulitzer Prize." - Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post: "There is no intellectual comfort zone for Krauthammer's comments. With intelligence and precision he removes layers of rhetoric from easy conclusions. What remains is substance - independent and challenging. Through grace of style he is cerebral without being pedantic. His work stands out for its scope, clarity and craftsmanship."274 The Pulitzer Board decided in favor of Jimmy Breslin who earned the Pulitzer Commentary Prize "for columns which consistently champion ordinary citizens."275 The members of the commentary jury of 1987 came to the following three suggestions in their report to the Board: Richard Cohen of the Washington Post Writers Group who "writes with an athlete's grace... His work reflects an unusual ability to combine fine intellect with great feeling in a writing style that is eloquent without being obstructive." Donald Kaul of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, who "is a writer of rare warmth and compelling contradiction. He's an old-time liberal who is an independent thinker. His writing is at once wise and mature, fresh and original. He writes as if he doesn't give a damn what habits and prejudices his readers may hold - yet always with evident respect and affection for them." - Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post Writers Group, "whose columns appear weekly..., offers a stimulating combination of insight and wit. At home in a wide range of subjects, he manages to be intellectual without seeming stuffy or pedantic. His is a refreshing voice in the field of national and international commentary."276 Never before had two of the three finalists come from the same newspaper. Charles Krauthammer was favored by the Advisory Board and received the commentary award "for his witty and insightful columns on national issues."277 After having looked through the applications for the commentary competition in 1988, the jury nominated four finalists: Molly Ivins of the Dallas Times-Herald for her witty columns on a variety of social and political issues; Dave Barry of the Miami Herald for his humor columns; Ira Berkow of the New York Times for thoughtful commentary on the sports scene; Michael Kinsley of United Feature Syndicate for his incisive commentary on a wide range of political topics.27** The Board members selected Dave Barry as winner "for his consistently effective use of humor as a device for presenting fresh insights into serious concerns."279 "Dave Barry's style," the Managing Editor of the Miami Herald had explained in the exhibit, "is instantly recognizable to anyone who has ever read him, yet he's nearly impossible to imitate. That's because it is not style that makes Barry funny. What makes us laugh is the shattering insight, the virtual clairvoyance of Barry's wit...: to unmask hypocrisy and expose fuzzy thinking. That he manages to succeed by creating belly laughs - or even tears..."

274 275 276 277 278 279

Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1986, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 33. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1987, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 33. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 2, 1988, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 33.

164

In 1989 the jury members again came up with a suggestion-list of three with the following names: Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune for his stimulating columns; Michael Kinsley of United Media Syndicate for informed commentary on a variety of national issues; Richard Cohen of the Washington Post for his clear and controlled commentary on social and political topics.280 Although Michael Kinsley had now already been among the finalists for the second time in a row, he, again, did not succeed in getting the Pulitzer Prize. It was given by the Advisory Board to Clarence Page instead "for his provocative columns on local and national affairs."281 The commentary jury of 1990 had no problems in nominating a group of finalists consisting of the following three journalists: Jim Murray, sports columnist of the Los Angeles Times, who was called "a model for sports writing; imagery that is as fresh and compelling today as it was when he first started writing his column twenty-eight years ago." Next nominee on the jury's list was Walter Goodman, television columnist of the New York Times. The jury stressed his "brilliant syntheses, connecting television to the world and society beyond." Finally, the jury named Richard Cohen, columnist of the Washington Post's Op-Ed page, who had already appeared among the three nominees of the former jury reports. This time, the jury members stressed his "consistently original insight; graceful writing; eminently readable; a moral dimension."282 Although Cohen had thus reached the group of finalists for the Pulitzer Commentary Prize three times within a few years, he would, again, not become winner of the competition. The Board decided in favor of one of the other nominees, and the Pulitzer Commentary Prize went to Jim Murray "for his sports columns."283 In 1991 the jurors first praised Rheta Grimsley Johnson of the Commercial Appeal of Memphis, Tn., for her insightful columns on a variety of topics. Philip Terzian of the Providence Journal-Bulletin was mentioned next on the jury list for his gracefully written columns about national and international events. Third on the list was William F. Woo of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for his thoughtful columns on local and national subjects.284 This time the Pulitzer Prize Board did not name any of the three finalists as winner. Instead, the award was given to someone who did not appear in the jury report. The prize went to Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post "for searching and prescient columns on events leading up to the Gulf War and on the political problems of Mikhail Gorbachev."285 The commentary jurors of 1992 suggested, together with two others, Liz Balmaseda of the Miami Herald for her columns about local Cuban-Americans and the issues affecting the immigrant community. This exhibit was followed by entries of two New York Times journalists. One of them was Robert Lipsyte who was praised for his insightful commentary on the world of sports. The second journalist of the New York Times was Anna Quindlen. Her commentary, the jury stated, "proceeds from conviction and compels with graceful power. She is intensely personal, but she speaks to and with her readers, demanding that they listen even if they don't agree."286 The Pulitzer Prize Board

280 281 282 283 284 285 286

Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 1,1989, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 33. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 7,1990, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 33. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 6, 1991, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 33. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1992, p. 1.

165

decided that the award should go to Anna Quindlen "for her compelling columns on a wide range of personal and political topics."287 In 1993 Liz Balmaseda of the Miami Herald again went onto the jury's short-list. "She did," the report says, "what the entire U.S. government failed to do. She traveled to Haiti and got the truth..." Betty DeRamus of the Detroit News was mentioned next. Her columns, in the eyes of the jurors, were "passionate, personal and persuasive. She adresses the problems of every American city. After reading her column, you can no longer define urban breakdown as someone else's problem." Bill Johnson of the Orange County Register from California was praised for his impressionistic accounts of his South Central Los Angeles neighborhood before and after the riots of the preceding year.288 The prize was awarded to Liz Balmaseda of the Miami Herald "for her commentary from Haiti about deteriorating political and social conditions and her columns about Cuban-Americans in Miami. "289 The commentary jurors of 1994 first suggested Jane Daugherty of the Detroit Free Press. Her exhibit contained columns about "the vulnerability of children in our complex and often abusive and tragic society... This is intelligent, compassionate journalism of community commitment and coverage that can be emulated by newspapers elsewhere in the U.S." Peter H. King of the Los Angeles Times came next for his "fine writing and his well-stated convictions... His eye for detail gives weight and credibility to his columns. His writing is clear and ever elegant." William Raspberry of the Washington Post came third. "From almost the beginning," the jury report states, his "work was a standout among commentary entrees... Raspberry's columns were written with honesty..., hardhitting..., gutsy... and a voice of the common man and woman."290 Raspberry got the award "for his compelling commentaries on a variety of social and political topics."291 In 1995 it was Paul A. Gigot of the Wall Street Journal who was one of the three finalists on the jury report. He was characterized as "a clear, concise chronicler of the changing face of national politics, combining timely reporting with an uncanny ability to anticipate trends and to sense the public mood." A columnist of Newsday, Jim Dwyer, followed next "for a consistently compassionate voice that illuminated the bitter complexities of urban American life." Carl T. Rowan of the Chicago Sun-Times concluded the list "for his principled, unwavering examination of... the nation's oldest and most prominent civil rights group, that became a clarion call for change."292 The Pulitzer Prize was "awarded to Jim Dwyer of Newsday for his compelling and compassionate columns about New York City."293 The jurors of 1996 praised Herb Caen of the San Francisco Chronicle: "He is the epitome of what a local, shoes-to-the-sidewalk columnist should be: unafraid to take stands, without being snide or hostile." Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal was listed next. "With tremendous courage, reasons and understatement," the jury report says, "she illuminated the darkness, calmed a hysteria and helped bring a measure of justice in two important cases." E. R. Shipp of the New York Daily News also was on the short-list for her "beautifully crafted commentary on a pre-eminent issue in the nation 287 288 289 290 291 292 293

Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7,1992, p. 3. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 3, 1993, p. 1. Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 13,1993, p. 4. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 1, 1994, p. 1. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1994, p. 3. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 8, 1995, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 18, 1995, p. 5.

166 since its founding."294 The Pulitzer Prize Board selected the latter columnist. The award was bestowed on E. R. Shipp "for her penetrating columns on race, welfare and other social issues. "295 In 1997 Tony Kornheiser of the Washington Post was first suggested by the jury. In his entry, the jury report states, "he has shown an ability to cover anything that moves sports and politics, heroes and fools." Eileen McNamara of the Boston Globe was mentioned next. "Her columns were tough without being mean, warm without being sentimental. Her writing and values," the jurors declared, "were both clear and detailed." Deborah Work of the Sun-Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale, Fl., came third. "She sees her world whole," the report says, "in some of her columns she is parent, citizen, critic and philosopher at the same time."296 The Board members were most impressed by the entry of Eileen McNamara, and she earned the prize "for her many-sided columns on Massachusetts people and issues."297 The commentary competition of 1998 brought an unexpected result. Bob Greene of the Chicago Tribune, who was mentioned first by the jurors, had presented "a classic crusade in the best tradition of journalism." Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post followed. "He displays original thinking and provides comprehensive analyses on a wide variety of subjects," the jurors told the Board. The third journalist on the short-list was Patricia Smith of the Boston Globe. "She has a lyrical, original and evocative writing style," the report says, "and (she) approaches issues - including urban violence, racism and family matters - from unpredictable directions."298 In this case the Pulitzer Prize Board found nobody on the jury list worthy of the prize. Instead, the Board gave the award to Mike McAlary of the New York Daily News "for his coverage of the brutalization of a Haitian immigrant by police officers at a Brooklyn stationhouse."299 The awardening procedure in 1999 went rather smoothly. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times was on the jury's list for her columns regarding the so-called "Monicagate" case in Washington. Another New York City journalist, Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice, came next. According to the jurors he demonstrated "in his writing a passion, intelligence, forcefulness and integrity" by discussing national and international topics. Donald Kaul of the Des Moines Register was third on the list for his witty columns from Washington on politics and other national issues.300 The Pulitzer Prize in this award category went to Maureen Dowd of the New York Times "for her fresh and insightful columns on the impact of President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky."301 In 2000 the three finalists in the commentary award category were: Paul A. Gigot of the Wall Street Journal, who brought "a measured, insightful and authoritative voice to the subject of politics and government;" Michael Kelly of the Washington Post Writers Group, who was characterized to be "insightful and persuasive, funny and sarcastic." Colbert I. King of the Washington Post was third on the jury's list as "a strong and persuasive voice for the powerless."302 The Pulitzer Prize Board voted in favor of Paul A.

294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302

Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 6, 1996, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 9, 1996, p. 4. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 5,1997, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7,1997, p. 4. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1998, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 14, 1998, p. 4. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 3,1999, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1999, p. 4. Commentary Writing Jury Report, March 1,2000, pp. 1 ff.

167

Gigot of the Wall Street Journal "for his informative and insightful columns on politics and government."303 The foundation of the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary in 1970 was a result of the lasting influence of Walter Lippmann on American journalism. He had been the leading figure in this field long before the award was inaugurated. But "it was his example that eventually led to the establishment" of this award, John Hohenberg states and then continues: "Although there is still a broad area of mistrust in American public life (and among numerous editors as well) of the power of commentators... published by influential newspapers, they have restored the personal element in American journalism and strengthened it... A columnist... is able at times to make disclosures that escape the attention of the most vigilant news organizations."304

8.3

Criticism Writing Award

Although there was no particular prize for critical writing30^ in the basic plan of awards, the Pulitzer testament had granted several arts scholarships. They were travel scholarships awarded annually30** from 1917 through 1959 to a student selected by the National Academy of Design. After 1959, the Advisory Board of the Pulitzer Prizes became disenchanted with the selection of the Academy and there were several years when the Board would not award the fellowship.307 As a result of these problems, the Board in 1961 voted to discontinue the Arts Fellowship and replace it with a Critical Writing Fellowship with the following definition: "An annual fellowship of $ 1,500 to assist an American student of superior qualifications to prepare for a career in critical writing on art or another cultural subject." These fellowships were given from 1962 through 1969. Thereafter no Pulitzer fellowships of this kind have been granted.308 "As a result of the discontinuance of the Pulitzer Fellowship in Critical Writing," in 1970 "a new journalism category for 'distinguished Criticism or Commentary' was added" to the existing Pulitzer Prizes.309 John Hohenberg remarks: "The new prize for criticism was a long overdue recognition of the growing importance of cultural affairs as a special field of journalism. Only the wealthiest and most powerful newspapers, which included most of the large ones, could afford to maintain their own critics in such varied fields as books and drama, movies and television, arts and architecture, and music... What jurors and Advisory Board members hoped for was that the prizes for such critics would encourage younger newspaper people to go in for critical writing in years to come."310 This newly established Pulitzer Prize, at this point of time, was the tenth category among journalism awards. It was defined as a prize "for distinguished criticism or commentary."311 It is unknown as to how many exhibits from the field of criticism were presented for review in spring 1970, when the first selection process began. The jury report talks of 303 Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 10, 2000, p. 4. 304 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prize Story II, New York 1980, pp. 293 f. 305 Cf. Heinz-D. Fischer/Erika J. Fischer (Eds.), The Pulitzer Prize Archive, Vol. 6: Cultural Criticism 1969-1990, Munich - London - New York - Paris 1992, LII + 420 pp. 306 Cf. De Forest O'Dell, The History of Journalism Education in the United States, op. cit., p. 109. 307 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 238, 378. 308 Information from Mrs. Robin Kuzen, Assistant to Administrator, The Pulitzer Prizes, Columbia University, New York, in a letter to the authors, dated November 30,1980. 309 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 32. 310 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 306. 311 Nomination form for a Pulitzer Prize in Journalism, New York, 1970/71.

168 "nearly 100 entries,"312 though this refers to all submissions subsuming articles from both, the fields of commentary and criticism, since these formed a double category. The members of the 1970 jury already expressed at their discontent about having to judge completely different genres the beginning of their report. "As might have been expected," the report says, "the entries did range broadly over the whole spectrum of criticism in specific areas of the arts to the traditional columns of commentary on public affairs... It was felt that for a 'specialist,1 a critic in whatever particular field of the arts or of our cultural milieu, to qualify for this particular award his work would need to be outstanding and to show a broad, general focus on his specific subject... We applied certain criteria to all the entries: good writing, significance of the subject matter, whether in the general political or cultural field, effectiveness and provocativeness, and contribution of the work to public understanding... We see the possibility that, with the growing 'cultural explosion' and the development of more special talent in that field of writing, the Advisory Board may well decide... to establish another award for specialized critical writing."313 In order to avoid the terminological dilemma of having to permanently distinguish between political commentary and articles of cultural criticism, the 1970 jury used the terms "general commentary" and "specialized commentary" by which criticism was meant. "In addition to... three in the general commentary list," it was stated in the report, which had to deal equally with both categories, "we would call attention especially to two examples of exemplary work in the fields of special commentary: The work of Ada Louise Huxtable, architecture critic, ... and of Jack Gould, television critic, ... in that order, was selected by our jury as the best work in the field of specialized commentary."314 The Pulitzer Prize Advisory Board was also deeply impressed by the outstanding work of Ada L. Huxtable of the New York Times and awarded her the Pulitzer Prize "for distinguished criticism."315 After the members of the 1971 commentary/criticism jury had agreed on a favorite in the field of commentary, they added to their report the following suggestion: "If the Advisory Board is willing again to consider a separate prize for criticism, it (the jury) recommends Harold C. Schonberg, music critic of the New York Times, who brings to his work a wide range of knowledge about the art, a recognition of music as a social phenomenon and the sense of thrill and magic found in the concert hall. He has indeed elevated the art of his criticism. The panel considers," it says in the jury report, "the inclusion of both criticism and commentary in a single category too broad an approach, forcing a choice between two different writing styles and treatments, a mixture of apples and oranges. It recommends separate categories for each,"316 - a desire which had already been uttered by the jury members in the year before. The Advisory Board was also convinced by the texts at hand and gave the prize to Harold C. Schonberg "for his music criticism."317 The jury members of 1972 still had to deal with the problems concerning the basic dilemma of the double category commentary/criticism. "After reading 73 entries which ranged through local columns, human interest, politics, Washington correspondence and theatre, art and architectural criticism," says the report, "the jury found it impossible to 312 313 314 315 316 317

Criticism or Commentary Jury Report, March 6, 1970, pp. 1 f. Ibid. Ibid., p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. Criticism or Commentary Jury Report, undated (March 1971), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34.

169 judge 'comment' and 'criticism' against one another." Thus, the jurors suggested an award winner for each of the two areas of commentary and criticism, the prize for the latter being awarded to Frank Peters Jr. of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "Frank Peters, writing from a position of expertise, does more than simply review musical performances," the jury report continues. "His clear and effective writing explains and examines the field of music in terms relevant to the musician and to the lay reader. He represents a high example of the type of criticism in a specialized field which newspapers should strive for."318 The Advisory Board consented and gave the Pulitzer Prize for criticism to Frank L. Peters Jr. "for his music criticism."319 The fact that "a prize was awarded in each field" of commentary and criticism during the first three awarding years, "led to its establishment as two separate categories" afterwards.320 For the first time in spring 1973, a special jury was formed which had to deal exclusively with the entries for the category "distinguished criticism." But even here immediate classification problems of another kind emerged, as the jury report states: "Category 11 specifies distinguished criticism. Yet several entries, many of them of considerable distinction, were set aside by the judges because, strictly speaking, they had to be classified as reportage in the arts rather than as criticism in the arts. Reportage in the arts is a legitimate category and we can understand why editors believed certain entries deserved recognition. Nonetheless, the judges felt obligated to observe the distinction. We respectfully commend to the Advisory Board the desirability either of establishing a separate category for reportage in the arts or extending and clarifying the definition of eligibility in Category 11... Some sharpening of the eligibility requirements," the jury report continues concerning the selection problems, "may be useful in connection with submissions that are written not by regularly engaged critics but by contributors. We recognize the difficulty here of refining the specifications but believe the matter should be considered nonetheless."321 After these basic questions concerning the jury's decisions had been clarified, suggestions for awarding the criticism prize were made by compiling a list of three, as was done by most other Pulitzer Prize juries. Furthermore, the jury report from early March 1973 thus states: "The jury... unanimously recommends, in the clear order of their preference, the following writers for the Pulitzer Prize in newspaper criticism: 1. Ronald Powers, TV critic, Chicago SunTimes; 2. Franz Schulze, critic of art and architecture, Chicago Daily News; 3. Melvin Maddocks, general critic in the arts, Christian Science Mom'/or."322 The Pulitzer Criticism jury stated that "the material we saw by Ron Powers was a sheer delight to read. He writes with zest and genuine wit. His evaluations of television programs are unambiguous, even appropriately sassy at times, and reflect a lively and wide-ranging mind. His critical skills are turned to the full octave of TV-programming, all the way from public affairs to comedy and sports... He possesses what to our mind are the requisites of an outstanding newspaper critic; the ability to raise standards without having to proclaim them; the ability to be both highly literate and highly readable; the ability to deal with a wide range of areas without apparent letdown of quality or, in his case, vigor and charm."323

318 319 320 321 322 323

Criticism or Commentary Jury Report, March 10,1972, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. Ibid., p. 32. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 9, 1973, p. 3. Ibid., p. 1. Ibid., pp. 1 f.

170 There were no objections made by the Advisory Board. So the Pulitzer Prize went to Ronald D. Powers "for his critical writing about television."324 In spring 1974 the criticism jurors also reached a clear consensus: "The Criticism Jury unanimously recommends Emily Genauer, art critic of the New York Post." The report continues: "The work of Miss Genauer, as demonstrated by the exhibits submitted to the jury, shows her to be that rare journalistic critic who blends an impressive command of her field with a freshness and warmth of language which leads the reader gently along an unfamiliar path. The jury admired the excitement she brought to her criticism even after more than thirty-five years and felt that her knowledge and style gave her work unquestioned eminence in a distinguished field of competitors. She possesses the admirable quality of writing in a manner which can be appreciated by both professionals and laymen. Other nominees considered in the final voting," the report concludes, "were Wolf von Eckardt, architecture critic of the Washington Post, and Clifford A. Ridley, arts editor of the National Observer."^25 The Advisory Board did not hesitate to award the Pulitzer Prize to Emily Genauer "for her critical writing about art and artists."326 In the following year, the selection process also proceeded without any complications. The 1975 criticism jurors nominated "for the Pulitzer Prize Roger Ebert, film critic, Chicago Sun-Times... Our second choice," the jury report continues, "on a very close vote... was Wolf von Eckardt, architectural critic, Washington Post;... Third choice was Hilton Kramer, art critic, New York Times;... Tied for fourth place in the judging were Jeffrey L. Simon, critic, Buffalo Evening News... and Jonathan Yardley, book editor, Miami Herald."^ The jury stated in its report that Ebert "has helped to elevate the standards of daily newspaper motion picture reviewing by combining a grace of style with rigorous honesty and thorough technical knowledge..."328 The Advisory Board saw no difficulties in awarding the Pulitzer Prize to Roger Ebert "for his film criticism."329 The jurors of the 1976 award once again compiled a list of three finalists: " 1. Alan M. Kriegsman, The Washington Post dance critic;... 2. Clifford A. Ridley, arts editor and columnist, The National Observer;... 3. Alfred Frankenstein, art critic, San Francisco Chronicle."^0 In the eyes of the Pulitzer Prize jury, Kriegsman was "a keen observer of an art form largely unfamiliar to many Americans. With an easy, sometimes witty - but not glib - manner he is able to assist the uninformed and lightly informed reader to understand the broad perspective, with technical application. The jury found his interpretations and criticism of ballet to be especially crisp and readable."331 The Advisory Board did not raise any objections against this nomination and gave the Pulitzer Prize to Alan M. Kriegsman "for his critical writing about the dance."332 In the preceding years, the Pulitzer Prize jury had already partly directed its attention to more unusual fields of criticism, and the jurors of 1977 had the courage to favor yet another area because the ranking of the finalists was "in order of preference: 1. William McPherson, editor of Book World, The Washington Post; 2. Thomas L. Hine, architectural writer, The Philadelphia Inquirer; 3. William C. Glackin, arts critic, The Sacramen324 325 326 327

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 8,1974, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 7,1975, p. 1.

328 Ibid. 329 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. 330 Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 5, 1976, p. 1.

331 Ibid. 332 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34.

171 to Bee. In addition," the report continues, "this jury calls special attention to the following entry: Jane Morse, travel editor, Atewsday."333 In reference to McPherson's encomium, the report stated that he "offers an unusually broad perspective of both literature and history to newspaper readers who are both serious and casual in their interest in books."334 The Advisory Board gave its consent and, therefore, the award went to William McPherson "for his contribution to 'Book World.'"335 The jurors of the awarding year of 1978 had problems reaching a clear decision. "After much discussion of the various entrants," the report states, "especially of the three finalists our group had agreed on, we have reached the following conclusion: We recommend that the Pulitzer Prize for criticism be awarded to Walter Kerr of the New York Times for his articles on the theater. We found these instructive, informed and entertaining - and exceptionally well written. We found the same qualities to be compellingly present in the book reviews of Margaret Manning of the Boston Globe. As a result we had a great deal of discussion before we were able to choose between the two. We did unanimously conclude that Mr. Kerr was our first choice for the award. But Mrs. Manning, in our unanimous judgment, ran him a very close second, and we feel (that) the Advisory Committee should be aware of this. Similarly, we were all impressed with the work of our third choice, Donald Hoffmann, architecture writer for the Kansas City Star."336 The Advisory Board decided in favor of Walter Kerr and gave him the Pulitzer Prize "for articles on the theater... throughout his long career."33^ There was not one theater critic among the finalists of the awarding year of 1979. The jury decided that the following three first contestants "were clearly superior to the next group of entries:... Martin Bernheimer, music critic of the Los Angeles Times; he is erudite, knows his music and has high standards and writes with style and clarity. His material is understandable to both the reader who knows music and the reader with just a casual interest. - Gary Deeb, television critic of the Chicago Tribune... Deeb provides revealing coverage of an industry that plays an enormous role in the lives of most Americans. He showed an understanding of this medium and its impact on our society. He defines TV's role and impact, in the opinion of the committee, better than any other critic. He has a vivid and compelling style. - Paul Gapp, architecture critic of the Chicago Tribune; he provides a knowledgeable interpretation of the human aspects of architecture with a writing style that neither preaches nor requires an interpreter. He writes about a complicated subject with clear prose."338 The Advisory Board also appeared to be most impressed by Gapp's texts and awarded him the prize for his "architecture critic."339 The Pulitzer Prize jury which was appointed in the criticism category in spring 1980 had no difficulties to reach a decision on that year's finalists. The recommendations of the jurors were as follows: "First Choice - Out of the many television critic nominees, William A. Henry 3rd (Boston Globe) stood out, in the judgment of all, for his direct approach, his overview of the significance of television to our culture, choosing the more difficult but less obvious targets to deal with in depth, clearly and incisively. His long pieces typified his ability to deal insightfully with broad trends and their future ramifica333 Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1977, p. 1.

334 Ibid. 335 336 337 338 339

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 2,1978, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 6, 1979, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34.

172 tions, and his other pieces demonstrated his skill in dealing with a deadline. He is not only a critic but also a fine reporter. Second Choice - William K. Robertson (Miami Herald)... Third Choice - William C. Glackin (Sacramento Bee) ..."34° From the side of the Advisory Board Henry III was given the Pulitzer Prize "for critical writing about television."341 In spring 1981, when the criticism jury had done the selection procedure, the following list of three contestants - which is in alphabetical order - was unanimously agreed upon: "Kisor, Henry - Book Editor, Chicago Sun-Times: Stylish writing, with a special knack for quickly pulling the reader into his reviews. (He) leaves the reader with no doubt as to the writer's opinion of the book, and how that opinion was formulated...; Temko, Allan - Architectural Critic, San Francisco Chronicle: Strong, forceful criticism, presented with authority but in such a way that the lay person could be expected to understand. Likely influence obvious, easy to accept as constructive, community force at a time when urban planning/ development of particular importance; Yardley, Jonathan Book Editor, The Washington Star: A lucid writing style not always associated with criticism; an ability to make his points; always careful to offer perspective, background, and compliment the reader's intelligence while enlightening the reader and stimulating the reader."34^ The Advisory Board endorsed this kind of lavish praise and gave the Pulitzer Prize to Jonathan Yardley "for his book reviews."343 The criticism jury of 1982 agreed upon the following three nominees: "(1) Martin Bernheimer, classical music critic, Los Angeles Times; (2) Donal Henahan, chief music critic, New York Times; (3) Marvin Kitman, television critic, Newsday."344 "Martin Bernheimer," it says with regard to the reasons of this suggestion, "was the jury's unanimous choice. His love for both music and the language was everywhere evident as he lamented the problems caused by a part-time conductor, put Pavarotti in perspective and defended Beethoven from trite and casual treatment. He stood out as a serious critic who never fails to communicate. We ranked Bernheimer above Henahan, but our respect for both of them grew as we looked again and again at the entries. Among all the entrants their expertise and solid scholarly underpinning stood out but never subverted their fine writing. Marvin Kitman... stands out in an overcrowded field. He writes with freshness, directness and wit while showing a strong societal concern about the medium."34^ Because of these merits it was no surprise that the Advisory Board awarded the Pulitzer Prize to Martin Bernheimer "for classical music criticism."346 In 1983 the members of the criticism jury worked out a list that also consisted of three names; they suggested in alphabetical order: "Beth Dunlop, The Miami Herald: Her evaluation and critical analysis of architecture make structures of steel and stone come to life. She also highlights weaknesses and demeaning or unsightly aspects of design with courage and clear expression. We felt she was the runner-up to Hoelterhoff. - Manuela Hoelterhoff, The Wall Street Journal: She displays a broad intellectual scope and appeals to a wide audience. The knowledge of her varied subjects is impressive and is conveyed

340 341 342 343 344 345 346

Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1980, p. 2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op, cit., p. 34. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 4,1981, p. 2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 3,1982, p. 1. Ibid., p. 2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34.

173

B AI Ό

S

II" W C

Pulitzer Prize for Criticism Writing, 1982

174 with clarity of language. The jury felt her entry was clearly the leading one in our category. - Stephen Schiff, The Boston Phoenix: His film criticism is streaked with humor. He provides a penetrating blending of characters. He probes into the elements of contrasting characters, pointing out dramatic entity or the lack of it in a provocative manner."347 Manuela Hoelterhoff was awarded the Pulitzer Prize "for her wide-ranging criticism on the arts and other subjects."348 The members of the criticism jury in spring 1984 clearly favored one finalist on their suggestion list of three: "(1) Dan Cryer, Newsday, book reviews. Our unanimous choice among the entries, Cryer's work deals clearly and directly with the full range of books. He is able to be strong in statement of viewpoint, at the same time evenhanded in judgment. His imagery is powerful. His writing is clear and attractive. - (2) Paul Goldberger, The New York Times, architecture criticism. Goldberger's pieces give a clear picture of how cities and buildings work at their best. He never lapses into irrelevant estheticism, and yet gives a clear historical and geographic perspective. His writing is concise and compelling. - (3) Ken Tucker, The Philadelphia Inquirer, pop critic. Tucker brings wit and description to the serious criticism of pop music. He raises the level of his subject, bringing along the attention of readers who might not otherwise be interested. Criticism like this succeeds in making newspapers relevant to readers who all too often find nothing to identify with."349 This time the Advisory Board used its fundamental right not to accept the first suggestion of the jury report. The Board gave the Pulitzer Prize to the jury's second choice; therefore, the award went to Paul Goldberger "for architectural criticism."350 Whereas formerly it was left open to the juries in all Pulitzer Prize categories how to couch their report, how to set the priorities etc., in 1985 a fundamental change in the procedure occurred. When the members of the criticism jury began their work, they were given a form for their report, which began with the following binding orders: "Please list your three nominations for the prize in your category in alphabetical order by newspaper. In the space provided beneath each identification line, please supply a brief statement as to why the jury believes that this particular entry deserves to receive the Pulitzer Prize in this category. It is not a part of the jury's charge to offer its preferences among its three nominees."351 In the past, jury reports sometimes had been quite short, but now, because of the new regulations, it was nearly impossible for all juries to present the finalists in more than a few words. In the case of the criticism jury, however, a report was created in which the group did not stick to one of the orders, namely to put the listing in alphabetical order by newspaper titles. The jurors chose an alphabetical listing of the nominated journalists instead. Nevertheless they still found enough opportunity to honor the three finalists and their work in an appropriate way in spite of the limited space.352 The jury report of spring 1985 contained the following statements about the list of three nominees: "Chute, James, music critic, The Milwaukee Journal: James Chute writes with clarity, brevity and wit. He writes not for himself but for his readers. He has the rare gift of conveying in words what the music must have sounded like. - Manning, Margaret, book critic (deceased), The Boston Globe: Margaret Manning's book reviews 347 348 349 350 351 352

Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 8, 1983, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 7, 1984, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. Cf. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 6, 1985, p. 1. Cf. ibid.

175

pop out as something very special. She was an excellent writer who delivered clarity and precision to her work. Ms. Manning did an outstanding job of blending important information about both the authors and their works. She provided a great service to her readers. - Rosenberg, Howard, television columnist, Los Angeles Times: An extremely lively writing style - exciting to read, clear. Rosenberg does a masterful job with the use of humor when appropriate. His work is an important contribution to understanding the media. He is thought provoking. Delightful to read."353 The Advisory Board made Howard Rosenberg the Pulitzer Prize winner. He received the award "for his television criticism."354 Because, in the preceding years, the request of the Advisory Board to rank the finalists alphabetically by newspapers had led to misunderstandings, the passage concerned read from 1986 on: "in alphabetical order by individual or newspaper." The actual criticism jury used this new possibility to organize their report alphabetically by name: "Richard D. Christiansen, entertainment editor, Chicago Tribune: As a supportive but not uncritical observer of the Chicago Theater, Mr. Christiansen has played a crucial role in the 'Chicago renaissance.' Wide-ranging in his coverage and wise in his judgments, he shows a remarkable capacity for responding to challenging new directions without losing sight of enduring principles. - Richard Eder, New York arts critic, Los Angeles Times: Mr. Eder's book reviews provide powerful and insightful assessments of a wide range of books, assessments clearly influenced by his extensive background as a foreign correspondent. He brings to his work an encyclopedic knowledge, not only of places, people and events, but of literature itself. - Donal Henahan, chief music critic, New York Times: Mr. Henahan's love and knowledge of music inform, and his witty, graceful style delights. His is a criticism of performing art that brings to life entertainingly what it analyzes insightfully."355 The Advisory Board voted in favour of Donal Henahan who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize "for his music criticism."35^ The criticism jury of 1987 was quite brief in its report in which, referring to the three selected finalists, it stated: "Richard Eder, New York arts critic, Los Angeles Times: Richard Eder's reviews are characterized by a probing intelligence, a graceful style, and an extraordinary range of concern. In his erudite yet passionately engaged writing, books become living creatures. - Frank Rich, chief drama critic, New York Times: For his superlative judgment combined with fine writing, a great sense of fairness and a deep knowledge and understanding of the theater. - Andrew Sarris, senior editor, The Village Voice: Andrew Sarris's film reviews are written with a clarity that produces a sense of discovery and depth without patronizing his readers."35^ The Advisory Board was completely convinced by the merits of Richard Eder and awarded him the Pulitzer Prize "for his book reviews."35** When the jurors gathered for the criticism prize in 1988 they recommended the following three contestants: "Tom Shales, television critic, Washington Post, Washington, D.C., for having a powerful impact in the television industry, as well as (on) television viewers, and for setting a high standard for a generation of television critics. He's also funny and true. - Michael Skube, book editor, The News and Observer, Raleigh, N.C.: is sensitive to the rich literary tradition of his community and writes so well for a news353 354 355 356 357 358

Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 5, 1986, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 3, 1987, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34.

176

paper audience. - Allan Temko, architecture critic, San Francisco Chronicle: he has helped to establish higher environmental standards in the Bay area for more than twentyfive years. As a fighting critic, he is surely one of the best. And, as a newspaper critic, he helps the lay person understand the dynamics of architecture."359 For the Advisory Board there was no doubt that Tom Shales should receive the Pulitzer Prize "for his television criticism."360 From the many entries which were to be reviewed by the 1989 criticism jury the following group of finalists was selected: "Joyce Millman, television critic, San Francisco Examiner: (she) approaches television for what it is - an elemental force in American culture...; David Richards, theater critic, Washington Post: (his) lively, thoughtful theater reviews make drama accessible to all readers...; Michael Skube, book critic, Raleigh News and Observer: (his) criticism is both learned and lively. He's authoritative without being pretentious; his obvious love of literature drows even the casual reader in to his well-crafted reviews and articles."361 Finally, Skube was awarded the Pulitzer Prize by the Advisory Board "for his writing about books and other literary topics."362 The criticism jury of spring 1990 came up with the following list of finalists: "Jory Brandon Fair, pop music critic, The Press-Enterprise, Claremont, Cal.: This is energetic, muscular criticism. Jory Brandon Fair's writing is enthusiastic and true to the genre of popular music. Like good rock 'n' roll, these pieces are hard driving and sheer fun... Wayne Lee Gay, classical music critic, Fort Worth Star-Telegram: In reviewing the performances of 107 contestants in the Van Cliburn piano competition, Gay brought compelling excitement to a classical piano event that might well have been overwhelming or redundant. The entry comprises deadline reviewing at a pyrotechnic level. The work is succinct, clear, sophisticated, serious music criticism... - Allan Temko, architecture critic, San Francisco Chronicle: Writing about architecture and design, Allan Temko demonstrates how a critic can offer leadership in setting goals for a community..."363 The Advisory Board did not have any doubts about giving the Pulitzer Prize to Allan Temko "for his architecture criticism."364 The selection of the Pulitzer Prize winner of criticism for 1991 was characterized by an exceptional feature: As in the preceding years the criticism jury produced a list which contained three names: Christopher Knight, staff writer, Los Angeles Times: His "comments on interlocking esthetics, economics, politics and sociology of art are original, important and, in fact, brave. His knowledge and insight are formidable, yet he conveys them informally enough to make a difficult subject wonderfully accessible." - Joyce Millman, TV critic, San Francisco Examiner: She "exhibits great range as a critic of television, that ubiquitous purveyor of pop culture. While she never forgets that TV is entertainment foremost, she is sensitive to its place in fashioning and reflecting our values. She can handily skewer such trash as 'America's Funniest Home Videos,' yet write with positive encouragement on the emerging rules for blacks on television. Her taste is discriminating." - Leslie Savan, writer, The Village Voice, "as a critic of hard-sell imagery has opened a new field of newspaper criticism with a remarkable display of perception and style. If advertising is a universal language of the age of mass communi359 360 361 362 363 364

Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 1, 1988, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 1, 1989, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 7, 1990, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 34.

177 cations, she has transcended national boundaries of thought and presentation in an original contribution to journalism."365 This time, however, the Advisory Board did not accept any of the three finalists from the criticism jury report but used its right to award a prize winner independently of the jury. The Pulitzer Prize winner of criticism was "moved by the Board from the Explanatory Journalism category" to criticism.366 Thus, the criticism award of 1991 went to "David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times for his critiques of the way in which the media, including his own paper, reported the McMartin Pre-School child molestation case" of 1990.367 Never before had the criticism award been given to a journalist who had questioned the mechanisms of the press itself. The winner's own newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, had praised the work by Shaw in an accompanying letter to the Shaw exhibit as follows: The McMartin case, "as the media told it, was open and shut... The media had plunged into hysteria and sensationalism, accepting and promulgating the most outlandish prosecution charges without asking even the most basic journalistic questions."368 In 1992 the criticism jurors had three finalists on their list. The first one was Michael Feingold of the Village Voice, New York. His work, the jury stated, "rises above the other entries in theatre criticism... Not afraid to challenge the establishment point of view, he is a remarkably 'non-elitist' elitist. Itabari Njeri of the Los Angeles Times followed. "With a single critical essay," the jurors stated, he "cuts a straight path through the forest of allegiances and political posturing that constantly exacerbate the single most difficult problem in America." The third finalist, Leslie Savan, also came from the Village Voice. "With unerring perception," the jury report says, she "has seen advertising, PR and political chicanery as a new field of socio-aesthetic criticism. Her merciless prose impales both the electronic and print media."369 The Pulitzer Prize Board did not accept any of these suggestions, but had no own proposal so that the result was "no award" in this prize category.370 The jury of 1993 kept the report about the selection process rather short. Gail Caldwell of the Boston Globe was the first of the three nominees. "She puts books into a larger social and intellectual perspective and writes with an elegance not often found on newspaper pages," the report states. Next on the list was Michael Dirda of the Washington Post: "He writes with rare breadth, covering children's books to scholarly works, with a lightly-worn erudition that does not call attention to itself." Leonard Pitts, popular music critic of the Miami Herald, in the eyes of the jurors "writes with passion and a distinctive voice, and with penetrating insight into broader cultural issues raised by the popular arts."371 The Board decided in favor of Michael Dirda of the Washington Post "for his book reviews."372 In 1994 it was Henry Allen of the Washington Post who came first on the criticism jury's list. Allen, according to the jurors, "mighty stretches the boundaries of traditional newspaper criticism, with wit and imagination." Lloyd Schwartz of the Boston Phoenix, a weekly paper, was praised as a "classic, classical music critic - knowledgable, precise, 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372

Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 5, 1991, p. 1. Columbia University, The 75th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 9,1991, p. 4. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 35. The editors of the Los Angeles Times, Foreword to the Shaw exhibit, undated (January 1991), p. 1. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 3, 1992, p. 1. Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1992, p. 4. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 3, 1993, p. 1. Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 13, 1993, p. 4.

178 a skillful writer - who goes beyond the usual boundaries." Third on the jury's list was Matt Zoller Seitz of the Dallas Observer. His "reviews combine rare understanding of the filmmaker's intent with an acute perception of what works for an audience, delivered in provocative style resonant with knowledge and authority."373 The Pulitzer Prize was awarded to Lloyd Schwartz of the Boston Phoenix "for his skillful and resonant classical music criticism."374 The three nominees on the jury's list of 1995 came from different fields of criticism. Stephen Hunter, film critic of the Baltimore Sun, was characterized by the jurors as "a novelist in addition to being a film critic... Whether the subject is the latest must-see item from Hollywood or an obscure art-house jewel, he writes accessibly, gracefully and insightfully." Margo Jefferson, theatre critic of the New York Times, had a number of merits. "Her writing," the jurors pointed out, "succeeds to a rare degree in joining art and life. She immerses herself entirely in the work in question and deals with it in its own terms." A TV critic from the Wall Street Journal, Dorothy Rabinowitz, came third on the list of finalists. She "writes with perception and wisdom about television as an art; as politics, as reflection of society," the jury report says.375 The Board chose Margo Jefferson of the New York Times as winner "for her book reviews and other cultural criticism."376 Two journalists from the Boston Globe were among the three finalists in 1996. Gail Caldwell, the book critic, "gives us not simply an opinion as a result... but the journey, pot-holes and contradictions and all, that got her there," the jury stated. Robert Campbell, architecture critic, was praised for his writing "about an important and complex subject with vision and clarity... It would not be too much to say that the Campbell style is itself almost architectural." Stephen Hunter, film critic of the Baltimore Sun was third. "Even in his harshest criticism," the jurors found, "he conveys a robust love for film."377 In a minority report, one of the jurors mentioned Robert Wilonsky of the Dallas Observer as a worthy fourth finalist.37** But this did not impress the Board members who voted in favor of Robert Campbell of the Boston Globe "for his knowledgeable writing on architecture."379 In 1997 an architecture critic of the New York Times, Herbert Muschamp, was first on the jury's list. "Although he casts his eye across a broad landscape," the jurors said, "he is at his eloquent best when interpreting New York's cityscape. We found his work unfailingly engaging, informative and inspiring." Tim Page, music critic of the Washington Post, was praised for his "first-rate criticism - and journalism - that could serve as a virtual model for this form." Leslie Savan, staff writer of the Village Voice of New York, was mentioned as the third nominee. "Most admirable," the jurors found, "she reports and criticizes without pontification. It's easy to be outraged at television's stupidities and hypocrisies, but to temper indignation with wit is an art, and Savan has perfected it."380 The winner was Tim Page of the Washington Post "for his lucid and illuminating music criticism."381 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381

Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 2, 1994, p. 1. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12,1994, p. 4. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 8, 1995, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 18,1995, p. 5. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 6, 1996, pp. 1 f. Criticism Writing Minority Jury Report, March 6, 1996, p. 1. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 9,1996, p. 5. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 5, 1997, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1997, p. 4.

179

The jurors of 1998 first had on their list an exhibit by a book critic for the New York Times, Michiko Kakutani. "With stunning reserves of fresh energy, critical intelligence and moral weight," the jury report says, she "demands excellence in books she reviews... and delivers it in her own." Dorothy Rabinowitz, TV critic of the Wall Street Journal, had "a distinctive style, a wide range of reference, and, above all, an unerring ear for hypocrisy and cant." A film critic of the Los Angeles weekly New Times, Peter Rainer, was praised for his "work... of highest quality. From his pulpit,... in the movie business's hometown, he is a strong voice helping to keep an entire industry honest. He deserves journalism's highest honor," the jury report closes.382 But the Board did not share this opinion and the award went to Michiko Kakutani of the New York Times "for her passionate, intelligent writing on books and contemporary literature."383 An unexpected result occurred in the criticism competition in 1999. Henry Allen of the Washington Post had delivered "revelation with the jolting authority of a lightning strike," the jurors said in their report. Gail Caldwell of the Boston Globe wrote "in a richly distinctive voice that reveals a distinctively rich mind. She combines an impressive mastery of literature and history with self-revelation that never crosses the line into self-indulgence." In the eyes of the jury Justin Davidson of Newsday, the third nominee, "blends a critical command of the intricacies of classical music with a fine reporter's ability to evoke the excitement and charms of the form first-hand."384 The members of the Board did not find any of the three finalists worthy of the Pulitzer Prize. The award went to a journalist who was not mentioned in the jury report instead: Blair Kamin of the Chicago Tribune was the winner "for his lucid coverage of city architecture, including an influential series supporting the development of Chicago's lakefront area."385 In 2000 it was Henry Allen of the Washington Post who was first named on the jury's list of suggestions. "His writing is distinguished," the jurors said about the photography critic, "in short, by a remarkable range of reference and depth and a lyricism of the most contained sort." The jury also found that in the entry by Michael Kimmelman, art critic of the New York Times, "the qualities of a first-rate mind (was) speaking to an intelligent lay audience." The movie critic Andrew Sams of the New York Observer was characterized as "personal, but in a way that highlights the subject matter rather than his own person."386 The Pulitzer Prize Board decided that the award should go to Henry Allen of the Washington Post "for his fresh and authoritative writing on photography."38^ The establishment of the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism turned out to be an extremely promising undertaking after its start about three decades ago. There exist two potential sorts of opinion writing in this field: criticism as a studied evaluation over time of an artistic effort, and reviewing as an overnight reaction to a play, concert, exhibit, etc.388 In any case, there are several problems and questions with regard to the ethics of the criticism business, too, for example libel as "a published defamation of an identifiable person or persons" in critical articles.389 And there will also always be "a potential source of conflict... Conflicts arise when editors don't share the same view of the func382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389

Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1998, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 14, 1998, p. 4. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 3, 1999, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1999, p. 4. Criticism Writing Jury Report, March 1, 2000, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 10, 2000, p. 4. Cf. Lehman Engel, The Critics, New York 1976. Campbell B. Tichener, Reviewing the Arts, Hillsdale, N.J., 1988, p. 127.

180

tions of criticism as critics."390 So it is one of the main side-effects of the Pulitzer criticism award to support this basic function of the press and to encourage journalists to work in this field.

390 John W. English, Criticizing the critics, New York 1979, p. 26.

181 9.

PRIZES FOR SPECIFIC JOURNALISM DIVISIONS

Toward the end of the seventies, a new journalism category was established to meet the more literary elements of press coverage rather than the reporting aspects; it was called "Feature Writing." A couple of years later, another new award category was created, it was called "Explanatory Journalism." At the same time the "Specialized Reporting" prize was created, it was later renamed "Beat Reporting."

9.1

Feature Writing Award

When the prize category was created in 1979 it had the following description: "For a distinguished example of feature writing giving prime consideration to high literary quality and originality."1 The nominating jurors in that year recommended four entries for consideration: Jon D. Franklin, science writer of the Baltimore Evening Sun; Hugh Mulligan, reporter of the Associated Press; Lynn Rosellini, staff writer of the Washington Star, and Jean Caldwell, free lance correspondent of the Boston Globe. "The committee ranked Franklin and Mulligan almost equally," the jurors expressed in their report, Franklin for his exceptional account of a brain surgery and Mulligan for the consistent excellence of his work on a variety of subjects... The jurors felt the general quality of the entries, with a few exceptions, was good to excellent. However," they added, "the jurors found difficulty in judging a category that includes such a variety of approaches. The entries included diverse types such as personal columns, sports features, interview-profiles, first-person experience stories and others."2 The Pulitzer Prize Board decided the example of science writing was best, and the award was bestowed on Jon D. Franklin of the Baltimore Evening Sun "for an account of brain surgery."·* In 1980 the jury again selected four finalists: Bonnie M. Anderson of the Miami Herald, Madeleine H. Blais, also of the Miami Herald, John R. Camp of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and Saul Pett of the Associated Press. "The nominating jury is moved to report that its unanimous decision was that it should recommend to the Board," the jury report said, "that the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing should be awarded to Madeleine Blais... Every one of us was impressed with Ms. Blais's skill, versatility, sensitivity and regard for the language in everything contained in the submitted entry. She is clearly a feature writer of extraordinary quality. Mr. Pett's entry was considered a close second. He is one of the great professionals in journalism." Third rank went to John R. Camp, and fourth place was given to Bonnie M. Anderson.4 The Pulitzer Prize was bestowed on Madeleine Blais of the Miami Herald "for 'Zepp's Last Stand.1 "5 The decision-making process of 1981 was to receive nationwide attention. The jury selected the following three finalists: First choice was Teresa S. Carpenter of the Village 1 2 3 4 5

Quoted from the Pulitzer Prize Journalism Entry Form, 1979. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 7, 1979, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes 1917-1991, New York 1991, p. 31. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1980, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 31.

182

Voice. "This gifted journalist," the jurors said, "went beyond the surface of a crime in 'Murder on a Day Pass' to deal with tragic weaknesses in our criminal justice and mentalcare systems." Second place went to Douglas Swanson of the Dallas Times Herald. He was called "a superb story-teller in the context of daily journalism, bringing a variety of insights and moods." Third rank was given to last year's winner in this award category, Madeleine Blais of the Miami Herald, who had submitted articles "with style, originality and compassion."6 The Board did not accept any of the three finalists but bestowed the award on Janet Cooke of the Washington Post "for her story of an eight-year-old heroin addict."7 Two days later, "the Board withdrew her prize. It was the first time in the sixtyfive-year history of the Pulitzer Prizes that an award was withdrawn because a story was false," the Board stated.8 Thereafter, the feature writing award was given to the jury's first choice, Teresa Carpenter of the Village Voice from New York City.9 In 1982 the bestowing of the Pulitzer Feature Writing award had no dramatic followup. The jury's "unanimous choice" was an exhibit by Saul Pett of the Associated Press. "It is a fine example of how to present to the reader a subject matter that is almost incomprehensible to the average citizen," the jury stated. The runnerup to the jury's first choice was Henry Bissinger of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. He "puts the reader on the airplane with a gripping account of an experience that presents the facts while letting the reader share with the passengers and crew an experience that cannot be forgotten." Erik Lacitis of the Seattle Times was third for "a graphic eye-witness account of a sensitive subject," the jurors said.10 The award went to Saul Pett of the Associated Press "for an article profiling the federal bureaucracy."11 For the jurors of 1983 the most moving entry in this category was the one by Nan Robertson of the New York Times, "a compelling account of the reporter's struggle with toxic shock." Second choice was Don Colburn of the Everett Herald from Washington state for coverage of "extraordinary efforts to heal burns at the nation's largest civilian treatment center." James Ricci of the Detroit Free Press was third on the jury's list for a report on "how an accident victim's organs gave life to four people."12 The Pulitzer Prize Board voted in favor of Nan Robertson of the New York Times "for her memorable and medically detailed account of her struggle with toxic shock syndrome."13 In 1984 the jury named the three finalists by names in alphabetical order. Charles Bowden of the Tucson Citizen, according to the jurors, displayed "an exceptionally wellpaced prose style... to a wide variety of subjects." Jay Hamburg of the Birmingham PostHerald had submitted an exhibit "on a young boxer and his manager... that will interest even readers who are not boxing fans." Nancy Tracy of the Hartford Courant from Connecticut was third on the list. Her "story of a progeria victim takes a one-dimensional figure out of the spot news and depicts a whole human being," the jurors said.14 This time the Board members did not accept any of the three proposals of the jury. Instead,

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Feature Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1981, p. 1. Columbia University, The 65th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 13, 1981, p. 3. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prize Board..., New York, April 15, 1981, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 31. Feature Writing Jury Report, undated (March 1982), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 31. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 9, 1983, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 31. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 7, 1984, p. 1.

183 the prize was bestowed on Peter Mark Rinearson of the Seattle Times for "his account of the new Boeing 757 jetliner."1^ Alice Steinbach of the Baltimore Sun was placed first by the jurors in 1985. She had covered the daily life of a blind boy. Second place was given to Michele Lesie of the Journal from Lorain, Ohio. The exhibit was one in a field of several entries dealing with teenage suicide. Scott Kraft of the Associated Press had reported about the rape of a twelve-year-old girl.16 The Pulitzer Prize Board selected Alice Steinbach of the Baltimore Sun "for her account of a blind boy's world, Ά Boy of Unusual Vision.'"17 In 1986 it was David Lee Preston of the Philadelphia Inquirer who headed the list of finalists for his moving report called "Journey to my Father's Holocaust," a "personal perspective on the Nazis' persecution of the Jews." An exhibit by John R. Camp of the St. Paul Pioneer Press focused "on a mainstream farm family's life," providing "a fresh and intimate insight into the country's agricultural problems." Irene Virag of Newsday had given a vivid description of a "Harlem woman who saves infants from drug-addiction."18 The Pulitzer Prize was bestowed on John Camp of the St. Paul Pioneer Press for his series "examining the life of an American farm family faced with the worst U.S. agricultural crisis since the Depression."1^ The jurors of 1987 put four final entries on their list. Michael Connelly, Robert McClure and Melinda Reinke of the Fort Lauderdale News-Sun Sentinel had covered the aftermath of an airline catastrophe. Barry Bearak of the Los Angeles Times was praised for three articles "that are clean, lean and well-paced." Alex S. Jones of the New York Times had done a "masterful job of portraying dynastic flaws that caused the sale of the state-wide institution" of the House of Bingham. Steve Twomey of the Philadelphia Inquirer was on the list for the coverage of "the public policy issue of big carriers in a nuclear age."20 He was also the winner and was cited "for his illuminating profile of life aboard an aircraft carrier."21 In 1988 Jacqui M. Banaszynski of the St. Paul Pioneer Press was among the finalists for a moving reportage on AIDS. Lynn Duke of the Miami Herald was praised for her powerful story about life at a housing project overrun by the drug crack. John Dorschner, also of the Miami Herald, was third on the jury's list. He had delivered detailed stories about a violent neighborhood feud, ethnic tensions in the Miami police department and Holocaust survivors in South Florida.22 The Pulitzer Prize was awarded to Jacqui Banaszynski of the St. Paul Pioneer Press "for her moving series about the life and death of an AIDS victim in a rural farm community."23 The jurors in 1989 were impressed by an exhibit of Tad Bartimus of the Associated Press telling a tragedy that "struck a family in a small Missouri town... The jury salutes this work for its depth, its style, its brevity and its drama," the jurors said in their report. Bob Ehlert of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune had written "about the clergy and religious institutions" in connection with crimes. Loretta Tofani of the Philadelphia In-

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 32. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 6, 1985, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 32. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 5, 1986, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 32. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1987, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 32. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 2, 1988, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 32.

184 quirer had delivered "a drug story like no other."24 But the Pulitzer Prize Board accepted no entry from the jury's list. The award was given to David A. Zucchino of the Philadelphia Inquirer "for his richly compelling series, 'Being Black in South Africa.' "25 In 1990 the jury's list was headed by Dave S. Curtin of the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph for an "extraordinary narrative that weaves extensive scientific information and a wide range of emotional input from its subjects into a gripping story." Mark Kriegel of the New York Daily News was also on the list for an "incredible amount of detail that captures the essence of a major street game and is used as a metaphor for showing the minority community." Jay Reed of the Milwaukee Journal had "returned to Vietnam and tells a story with riveting detail," the jurors said.26 The Pulitzer Prize went to Dave Curtin of the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph "for a gripping account of a family's struggle to recover after its members were severely burned in an explosion that devastated their home."27 Tad Bartimus of the Associated Press was first on the list of 1991 "for writing that elevates simplicity to an art." She had delivered a moving account of her father's death from lung cancer. Wil Haygood of the Boston Globe had presented to the jurors three illuminating portraits of African-American life. Sheryl T. James of the St. Petersburg Times was third for "the reconstruction of the baffling abandonment of an infant."28 This story was found prize-worthy by the Pulitzer Prize Board. So Sheryl James of the St. Petersburg Times won the award "for a compelling series about a mother who abandoned her newborn child and how it affected her life and those of others."29 In 1992 it was Frank Bruni of the Detroit Free Press who was first on the jury's shortlist. He had given a profile of a child molester that challenged many assumptions about sexual abuse. The previous year's winner, Sheryl James of the St. Petersburg Times, was mentioned for her gripping account of the effort to transplant the organs of a dead boy and turn the tragedy of his death into a gift of life for others. Howell H. Raines of the New York Times was praised by the jury for "a beautifully written, insightful examination of the collision of two worlds."30 Howell Raines was also the winner of the Feature Writing award for "an account of the author's childhood friendship with his family's black housekeeper and the lasting lessons of their relationship."31 First rank on the jury's list of 1993 went to George Lardner Jr. of the Washington Post for "an unusual first-person narrative in which the author transcended his emotions to investigate a social and legal system in crisis." Hank Stuever of the Albuquerque Tribune could also be found on that list for his lively and vivid reporting of the celebration of a young couple's wedding. Judith Valente of the Wall Street Journal was cited for her moving story about a family brought together by AIDS.32 The Pulitzer Prize Board decided in favor of George Lardner Jr. of the Washington Post "for his unflinching examination of his daughter's murder by a violent man who had slipped through the criminal justice system."33 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Feature Writing Jury Report, March 1,1989, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 32. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 6,1990, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 32. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 6,1991, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 32. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 4, 1992, p. 1. Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1992, p. 3. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 3, 1993, p. 1. Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 13,1993, p. 4.

185 In 1994 the jurors praised an exhibit by Mark Feeney of the Boston Globe for his "sharp-witted, provocative and remarkably kaleidoscopic portrait of Richard Nixon." In their entry April Witt and Scott Higham of the Miami Herald "drove readers through nice, middle-class suburban neighborhoods into the hearts of darkness of seven tormented teenagers who brutally planned and murdered their equally tormented friend." Isabel A. Wilkerson of the New York Times was represented with two different stories and background coverage in the competition.34 This exhibit was chosen by the Board members, and Isabel Wilkerson received the Pulitzer Prize "for her profile of a fourthgrader from Chicago's South Side and for two stories reporting on the Midwestern flood."35 The jury of 1995 selected the following three finalists: David Finkel of the Washington Post for his story examining middle class flights from the District of Columbia, and for two profiles. Anne V. Hull of the St. Petersburg Times from Florida was chosen for her account of a local businessman's secret life of drug addiction and consorting with prostitutes. Fen Montaigne of the Philadelphia Inquirer had published stories about people who enjoy the outdoors, especially those with a passion for fishing.3** The Pulitzer Prize Board was not impressed by any of the three finalists and chose a different winner. It was Ron Suskind of the Wall Street Journal "for his stories about inner-city honor students in Washington, D.C., and their determination to survive and prosper."37 In 1996 the jury's list was headed by Rick Bragg of the New York Times "for bringing us a fresh view of old places, and for shining an honest, compassionate and searing light on ordinary people swept up in extraordinary times." Richard E. Meyer of the Los Angeles Times had delivered a story called "Buried Alive." It was a chilling profile of a woman's desperate attempts to communicate after being left mute and paralyzed by strokes. The jurors also selected Hank Stuever of the Albuquerque Tribune for his detailed and very personal account of returning to his hometown of Oklahoma City after the bombing there.38 The award went to Rick Bragg of the New York Times "for his elegantly written stories about contemporary America."39 The jury members of 1997 selected the following three finalists: Julia Prodis of the Associated Press for "wonderful, literary story-telling that creates scenes for the reader, producing the kind of imagery that puts the reader in the middle of the action." Lisa K. Pollak of the Baltimore Sun, in the opinion of the jurors, "produced a compelling piece of journalism, skillfully weaving together the story of a family's struggle with disease and death, baseball and medicine." Jeffrey Fleishman of the Philadelphia Inquirer had submitted "the compelling and dramatic account of the odyssey of fifteen Buddhist monks."40 The Pulitzer Prize was bestowed on Lisa Pollak of the Baltimore Sun "for her compelling portrait of a baseball umpire who endured the death of a son while knowing that another son suffers from the same deadly genetic disease."41 In 1998 the jury, at the beginning of its shortlist, named Tom French of the St. Petersburg Times for his tale of the last days of a vacationing Ohio farm wife and her teenage daughters. Steve Giegerich of the Asbury Park Press from New Jersey was cited for his 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Feature Writing Jury Report, March 2, 1994, p. 1. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12,1994, p. 3. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 7, 1995, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes.,., New York, April 18, 1995, p. 4. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 6, 1996, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 9, 1996, p. 4. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 5, 1997, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1997, p. 4.

186 startling and original story about a bond that formed between four medical students and the body they studied. J. R. Moehringer of the Los Angeles Times was among the finalists for an extraordinary documentation of a heavyweight boxer's glory days and his fall. Moehringer's "sensitivity, compassion and relentless pursuit of an elusive reality," the jurors remarked, "has produced a story worthy of a Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing."42 But the Board selected Thomas French of the St. Petersburg Times "for his detailed and compassionate narrative portrait of a mother and two daughters slain on a Florida vacation."43 The jurors of 1999 selected, among two others, Tom Hallman Jr. of the Oregonian from Portland for his unique profile of a man struggling to recover from a brain injury. Angelo B. Henderson of the Wall Street Journal came next for a reconstruction of a druggist's encounters with armed robbery and a fatal shooting. Eric L. Wee of the Washington Post was on the list for his moving account of a Washington lawyer whose collection of postcards helps to preserve his memories of a fleetingly happy childhood.44 The Pulitzer Prize Board bestowed the award to Angelo B. Henderson of the Wall Street Journal "for his portrait of a druggist who is driven to violence by his encounters with armed robbery, illustrating the lasting effects of crime."45 In 2000 a war correspondent of the Washington Post, David Finkel, was first on the jury's list. He was cited for his moving account of a woman forced to choose between staying with her family in a Macedonia refugee camp, or leaving to marry a man in France. Anne V. Hull of the St. Petersburg Times was placed next for her quietly powerful stories of Mexican women who come to work in North Carolina crab shacks, in pursuit of a better life. J. R. Moehringer of the Los Angeles Times, who had also been among the finalists two years ago, was praised by the jurors for "a literary piece of journalism that transports us to a place on the brink of change."46 The Pulitzer Prize Board found this entry worthy of the award. So J. R. Moehringer won the prize "for his portrait of Gee's Bend, an isolated river community in Alabama where many descendants of slaves live, and how a proposed ferry to the mainland might change it."4^ This topic brought an additional perspective to the Feature Writing category right at the beginning of the new millennium.

9.2

Explanatory Journalism Award

A new award category was established in 1985. It was called "Explanatory Journalism" and it was defined as follows: "For a distinguished example of explanatory journalism that illuminates significant and complex issues."48 When the first jurors of this award category assembled in the spring of 1985, they selected three finalists in alphabetical order by newspapers. Jon D. Franklin of the Baltimore Evening Sun was the first one. His series of articles, according to the jury, "justified the explanatory category of the Pulitzer awards as no other did. It is a distinguished 42 43 44 45 46 47

Feature Writing Jury Report, March 6, 1998, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 14,1998, p. 4. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 3, 1999, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1999, pp. 3 f. Feature Writing Jury Report, March 1, 2000, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 10, 2000, p. 3.

48 Quoted from the Pulitzer Prize Journalism Entry Form, 1985.

187

example of a highly complex subject of significant new dimensions." The Greensboro News and Record from North Carolina had submitted an exhibit about the complex role tobacco plays in that area. Pam Sprague and Rob Orcutt of the Daily Herald from Wausau, Wisconsin, were praised by the jurors for a special section on the city's growing Indochinese refugee population, the Hmong.4^ The Pulitzer Prize Board bestowed the award on Jon D. Franklin of the Baltimore Evening Sun "for his seven-part series The Mind Fixers,' about the new science of molecular psychiatry."50 In 1986 the jury report starts with an exhibit by Robert Lee Hotz and Robert Cooke of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution for a "fascinating series" that "explains the enormous scientific, social and moral issues raised by progress in the study of genetics." Larry Batson of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune pointed out "the paradox of explosive population growth in those very areas where water resources are leanest." An entry by the New York Times staff was judged by the jury as "a comprehensive and extremely clear exploration of the significant aspects of the proposed strategic defense initiative" of the U.S.51 This exhibit impressed the Board members most, and they gave the prize to the New York Times staff "for a six-part comprehensive series on the Strategic Defense Initiative, which explored the scientific, political and foreign policy issues involved in 'Star Wars.' "52 The jurors of 1987 put on their list Leon Dash of the Washington Post for his "upclose, personal and specific look at teenage pregnancy" as a growing national problem. Jeff Lyon and Peter Corner of the Chicago Tribune were praised for a series on genetic research that "provided a stunning amount of information about the tiny 'killers and cripplers' and the great moral concerns we face as we learn more about our bodies and minds." Georgia Tasker of the Miami Herald had delivered a special report on the vanishing rain forest, which illustrated the rapid destruction of one of the earth's oldest and most fragile ecosystems.53 Jeff Lyon and Peter Corner of the Chicago Tribune were the winners "for their series on the promises of gene therapy, which examined the implications of this revolutionary medical treatment."54 In 1988 the three finalists on the jury's list were the following: Tim Weiner of the Philadelphia Inquirer for a series of reports on a secret Pentagon budget used by the government to sponsor defense research and an arms buildup. Daniel Hertzberg and James B. Stewart of the Wall Street Journal were selected for articles entitled "Terrible Tuesday" and "A Dream Gone Wrong." These articles "reflect both depth and the clarification of the material," the jury report said. Athelia Knight of the Washington Post, third on the jury's list of recommendations, was cited for her account of a year in the life of an urban high school, an in-depth portrait that examined many of the problems facing American education.55 The award went to Daniel Hertzberg and James B. Stewart of the Wall Street Journal "for their stories about an investment banker charged with insider trading and the critical day that followed the... stock market crash."56 The three finalists of 1989 had worked on very different topics. David Hanners, William D. Snyder and Karen A. Blessen of the Dallas Morning News had submitted an 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 6, 1985, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 20. Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 5, 1986, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 20. Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 4, 1987, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 20. Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 2, 1988, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 20.

188 "Anatomy of an Air Crash." David L. Shaw of the Los Angeles Times illuminated "the inner workings of the mass media, including their less flattering sides," the jury stated and added: "His stories exemplify the clarity of language and depth of insight that typify the finest in explanatory writing." Bernard Wysocki Jr. of the Wall Street Journal was among the finalists for stories about America's struggle to maintain its technological superiority over international competitors, especially Japan.57 The prize was awarded to David Hanners, William Snyder and Karen Blessen of the Dallas Morning News "for their special report on an... airplane crash, the follow-up investigation, and the implications for air safety."58 In 1990 the jury had four nominations: A Dallas Morning News team had covered "hidden wars" in Third World countries. The staff of the Times-Advocate of Escondido in California was cited for reports about a shooting spree by a local mail carrier. Eric C. Nalder of the Seattle Times impressed the jury with a revealing series about oil-tanker safety and the failure of industry and government to adequately oversee the shipping of oil. David A. Vise and Steve Coll of the Washington Post were nominated as competitors in this award category for their coverage of an agency which regulates Wall Street.59 The Washington Post reporters David A. Vise and Steve Coll were the winners "for stories scrutinizing the Securities and Exchange Commission and the way it has been affected by the policies of its former chairman. "^ The jurors in 1991 returned to the usual practise to nominate three finalists. Susan C. Faludi of the Wall Street Journal was one of them. She spelled out "the human cost behind high finance." Charles A. Kite of the Roanoke Times & World News from Virginia had shown "deep human insight into a major social-ethical issue of our time," the jury stated. He had presented stories about life-and-death decisions at a local intensive care unit. An exhibit by Ronald Kotulak and Peter Corner of the Chicago Tribune had discussed "genetic engineering and its many ramifications."61 The Pulitzer Prize Board was most impressed by the exhibit of Susan C. Faludi of the Wall Street Journal. She earned the award "for a report on the leveraged buy-out of Safeway Stores, Inc., that revealed the human costs of high finance."62 In 1992 Rob Carson, Geff Hinds and Suki Dardarian of the Morning News from Tacoma in the state of Washington reached the group of finalists for a special but unsuccessful initiative on the state's ballot that would have granted terminally ill individuals the right to have a physician end their lives. Robert S. Capers and Eric S. Lipton of the Hartford Courant from Connecticut had delivered a series called "The Looking Glass." James O'Byrne, Mark Schleifstein and G. Andrew Boyd of the New Orleans TimesPicayune were praised for articles about the toxic waste and pollution that threaten the future of the state of Louisiana.63 The Pulitzer Prize was given to Robert S. Capers and Eric Lipton of the Hartford Courant "for a series about the flawed Hubble Space Telescope that illustrated many of the problems plaguing America's space program."64 The jurors of 1993 first mentioned in their report Mike Toner of the Atlanta JournalConstitution for "an excellent set" of reports on a complicated issue. The staff of the 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 1, 1989, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 20. Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 7, 1990, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 20. Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 6,1991, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 20. Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 3, 1992, p. 1. Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 2.

189

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1990

The Reckoning Safeway LBO Yields Vast Profits but Exacts A Heavy Human Toll

versary of Ills last shift at Safeway this way: First he told his wife he loved her, then lie locked the bathroom door, loaded his .22-callber hunting rifle and blew his brains out "Safeway was James's whole life,1: says his widow, Helen. "He'd near stand up and salute whenever one of those trucks went by." When Safeway dismissed him, she says, "It was like he turned Into a piece of stone."

The '80s-Style Buy-Out Left Eighties Fad Few financial maneuvers have drawn Some Employees Jobless, more controversy than the leveraged buyout, or LBO, a relatively old money-makStress-Ridden, Distraught ing tactic that was dusted off and put to Owner KKR Hails Efficiency By SUSAN C. FAUIUI Xlafl ttcpuilrr u/TllK WAi.i.STUKKTjmjHNAl.

OAKLAND. Cailf.-On the eve of the 1986 leveraged buy-out of Safeway Stures Inc., the board of directors sat down to a last supper. Peter Magowan. the boyishlooking chairman and chief executive of the world's largest supermarket chain, rose to offer a toast to the deal that had fended off a hostile takeover by the corporate raiders Herbert and Hubert Haft. "Through your efforts, a true disaster was averted." the «-year-old Mr. Magowan told the other directors. By selling the publicly held company to a group headed by buy-out specialists Kohlberg Kravls Roberts & Co. and members of Safeway management, "you have saved literally thousands of jobs In our work force." Mr. Magowan said. "All of us-employees. Pdcr J/njoiwin customers, sharelx>ldors-hnw a great deal to be thankful for." Kearly four yeurs later, Mr. Magowan and the KKR group can indeed count their blessings. While they burrowed heavily to buy Safeway from the shareholders, last month they sold 10% of the company (but none of their own shares ι back to the publlc-ίΐΐ a price that values their own collective stake at mure than HOD million, more Hum four times their cash investment. Employees, on the other hand, have considerably less reason tu celebrate. Mr. Magowan's toast notwithstanding. 63,000 managers and workers were cut loose from Safeway, through store sales or layoffs. While die majority were re-employed by their new store owners, this was largely at lower wages, und many thousands of Safeway people wound up either unemployed or forced Into the part-time work force. A survey of former Safeway employees In Dallas found that nearly (0% still hadn't found full-time employment more Mian a year after the layoff. James White, a Safeway trucker for nearly 30 years in Dallas, was among the 60·"ι. In 1S88, he marked the one-year annl-

extensive use In the 1980s, thanks largely to the rise of junk-bond financing. ' In a leveraged buy-out, a small group of Investors that generally Includes senior management borrows heavily to buy a company from public shareholders and takes it private. The debt is to be rapidly repaid from the company's own cash flow ur from sales of its assets. The returns on somesuch highly leveraged investments hav»teen astronomical, enriching such financiers as Henry Kravls, Ronald Perelman and Nelson Peltz to a degree unheard of since the days of the Robber Barons. Proponents of LBOs argue lhal they are good for business and good for America, triggering long-overdue crash weight-loss programs for flabby corporalions. Dy placing ownership In the hands of a small group of Investors and managers witli a powerful debt-driven Incentive to Improve productivity, the argument goes, companies can't help but shape up. Success Story The Safeway 1J30 Is often cited as one «f the most successful In this regard. It brought shareholders a substantial premium at the outset, and since then the company has raised productivity and operating profits and produced riches for the new investors and top management. "We could not have done what we did do without guing through the Incredible trauma and pressure of the LBO." Mr. Magowan said in late 19MI. But while much has been written about the putative benefits of LBOs, little has been said about the hundreds of thousands uf people directly affected by the past decade's buy-out binge: employees of the bouglu-om corporations. In the case of Safeway, a two-month Investigation of the buy-nut reveals enormous human costs and unintended side effects. The company dropped tens of thousands of employees from Us payroll, suppliers and other deliendent Industries laid off hundreds more, ami communities lost Ihn civic contributions of a firm whose first store had been opsned by a clergyman who wanted to help his parishioners save money. When Safeway Itself selected a group of Us employees to speak to this newspaper on belialf of the company, not one of those Interviewed praised the buy-out. "1 think LBOs arc very ugly," said Girl Adkuis, an inventory control clerk who described himself as happy with his job. "I think they are harmful to individual working peoplr. I think they honestly slink."

support (he argument that the LBO made Safeway a healthier Institution. The supermarket chain cut plenty of muscle with the 'tat. both from its holdings and from Its la.bor force, and deferred capital improve•ments In favor of the all-consuming debt. IMany employees find the post-UO workIng environment more difficuit-as a company legendary for job security and fairness resorts to hardball labor policies and high-pressure quota systems. Just before the Safeway deal was struck ' In 1986, Mr. Magowan's mother grew worried about the employe«». The supermarket dowager wanted lu be-sure the LBO wouldn't damage Safeway's longstanding reputation as a benevolent employer. Will anyone get hurt? Mrs. Maguwan pressed her son at the time, according to company stuff members. Will anyone Instills job? | No Mom. Mr. Maguwan promised, according to the staffers' account. No one will get hurt. •"Yes. I was greatly concenied aboui the people," Mrs. Magowan recalls today, in her mansion overlooking the San Francisco Bay. She declines to comment furthfr. Mr. Maguwan's recollection: "Well. I don't ever remember such a conversation ever occurred. ... I might havr said things like. 'We're guing to do the best we can for our employees and I'm hopi-ful dial we are going to be able to keep Ihe vast majority with the new owners.' " • In any event, before that summer was nut. Mrs. Magowan's son had begun firing Safeway employees. Not long after. Safeway replaced Its longtime motto. "Safeway Offers Security." The new corporate statement, displayed on a plaque In Ihe lolioy al corporate headquarters, reads in parr. "Targeted Returns on Current Invest mem."

Before the LBO, Safeway was hardly a prime example of the sluggish, nut-ofshape sort of company that LUO |iro|»>nents like to target. Founded in 1928. It had grown under Maguwnn family leadership to encompass more than 2.000 slorw in 29 states and In England. Australia. Canada and Mexico. Mr. Magnwan's father. Rol>erl, had largely built Safuway, and his mother, Doris Merrill Magowan, is (he daughter of a founder of Merrill Lyncli & Co., which helped finance Safeway's growth. Many companies, including Safuwuy. had allowed their payrolls to become bloated In certain underperformlng divisions, and layoffs were common throughout largi! American cninpanira ιΙιιιΊιικ Ιΐκ· last decade. But Safeway was already iliiiuu -alln-it al a slower pace-many of the tiling 1.11(1 experts advocate. II was n-minlelihi; its stores and creating the u|crale "sii|ier· stores" (hat have now proved surli a lib success. U was experiment HIK with employee productivity teams, phusiiij: »HI money-losing divisions, ami ililiiuint Us work force with a ρπνκιιιι llial iiirlmksl some layufts but gem-rally h-IUil mi li-ss painful melhmls like atiriliun. All these rhaHjies |Μ·ι«Ιικ·ι·ιΙ i-ariiiui;:. Moreover, the evidence doesn't entirely

Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Journalism, 1991

190 Post-Standard from Syracuse, New York, was cited for its series about inadequate medical care given New York State prison inmates; the articles were called "an outstanding series."65 The Pulitzer Prize Board was most impressed by the entry of Mike Toner of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He was praised "for 'When Bugs Bite Back,' a series that explored the diminishing effectiveness of antibiotics and pesticides."66 In 1994 two staff exhibits were placed in the group of finalists. The Dallas Morning News had presented to the jury several articles on the mistreatment of women. The jurors noted "incisive writing, cross-cultural perspectives and the gravity of the issue." The staff of Newsday was cited for reporting on exhaustive treatment of environmental factors and breast cancer. The jury praised "strong reporting, clear analysis, and strong focus for Long Island readers." Ronald Kotulak of the Chicago Tribune was the only individual journalist on the jury's list. The jurors acclaimed his "broad span of issues and applications."67 This reporting impressed the Board members and they gave the award to Ronald Kotulak "for his lucid coverage of current developments in neurological science."6** The jury members of 1995 nominated the three finalists as follows: Leon Dash and Lucian Perkins of the Washington Post. In the eyes of the jurors they brought "home with matchless detail and intensity the cycle of dependency and poverty that traps generations." A similar problem was discussed in the exhibit of the Montgomery Advertiser from Alabama. Its staff had reported about questionable management practices and self-interest at the Southern Poverty Law Center, the nation's best-endowed civil rights charity. Ron Suskind of the Wall Street Journal came next on the jury's list for his stories about inner-city honor students in Washington, D.C., and their determination to survive and prosper.69 Ron Suskind's exhibit won the Pulitzer Prize of that year in the Feature Writing category.70 The Explanatory Journalism award went to Leon Dash and Lucian Perkins of the Washington Post "for their profile of a District of Columbia family's struggle with destructive cycles of poverty, illiteracy, crime and drug abuse."71 In 1996 among the finalists in this category were Chris Lester and Jeff Spivak of the Kansas City Star for their series on the impact of spreading suburban growth. Michael A. Hiltzik, David R. Olmos and Barbara Marsh of the Los Angeles Times were praised for reporting on problems stemming from the lack of regulation in California's booming managed health care industry and the implications for the rest of the country. Adam Bryant, Stephen Engelberg and Matthew L. Wald of the New York Times were mentioned for their coverage of deficient safety regulations of commuter air traffic.72 The Pulitzer Prize Board did not accept any of the three proposals. Instead, it bestowed the award on Laurie Garrett of Newsday from Long Island, N.Y., "for her courageous reporting from Zaire on the Ebola virus outbreak there."7·' The jurors of 1997 selected three finalists with rather different topics: John M. Crewdson of the Chicago Tribune had delivered "a superb piece of reporting and writing about the subject of airline passengers who become ill." The reports illustrated through 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 3, 1993, p. 1. Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 2. Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 2,1994, p. 1. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 2. Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 8,1995, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 4. Ibid., p. 2. Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 6, 1996, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., pp. 2 f.

191 dramatic examples the need of training of personnel and installation of special equipment by U.S. airlines to cope with medical emergencies in the air. Gregory Kane and Gilbert A. Lewthwaite of the Baltimore Sun delivered a portrait of the complex practices of slavery in the Sudan. Michael Vitez, April Saul and Ron Cortes of the Philadelphia Inquirer completed the group of finalists. Their series "Final Choice" carried "readers directly into life's most private and most poignant moments."74 This exhibit won the prize "for a series on the choices that confronted critically-ill patients who sought to die with dignity."75 In 1998 the jury's list of recommendations was headed by Paul Salopek of the Chicago Tribune. "Using storytelling as his technique," the jurors stated, "Mr. Salopek explained the ramifications for both science and culture." Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times showed "a wide range of approaches to her material, each fulfilling a specific purpose." The jury was especially impressed by her illuminating coverage of the United States Supreme Court. David Barstow of the St. Petersburg Times from Florida was praised for his narrative portrait of the legal struggle against the tobacco industry, focused on the personalities who were central in reaching a tentative settlement of billions of dollars.7*' The Pulitzer Prize Board chose Paul Salopek of the Chicago Tribune as winner "for his enlightening profile of the Human Genome Diversity Project, which seeks to chart the genetic relationship among all people."77 Richard Read of the Oregonian from Portland was one of the three finalists in 1999. According to the jurors, he brought "a mammoth and complex topic - the world economic crisis - home to the readers of the Oregonian in a clear and dramatic fashion." William Carlsen and Reynolds Holding of the San Francisco Chronicle were put on the list for their compelling series chronicling the epidemic of health risks associated with the reckless use of unsafe hypodermic needles. Tom Brune of the Seattle Times was praised for his revealing analysis of the Washington state initiative on affirmative action that challenged accepted notions about practices that had been in place for three decades.78 The Pulitzer Prize was bestowed on Richard Read of the Oregonian "for vividly illustrating the domestic impact of the Asian economic crisis by profiling the local industry that exports frozen french fries."79 In 2000 the jurors of this category made the following three recommendations for the award: Eric Newhouse of the Great Falls Tribune from Montana had covered "a huge local problem." Michael Winerip of the New York Times was put on the list for his profile of a mentally ill man who pushed a woman in front of an onrushing subway train, a case used by the writer for a broad overview of deficiencies in the mental health care system. Alex Pulaski and Brent Walth of the Oregonian were cited "for a series on the nation's landmark pesticide law that vividly illustrated the gap between ideals and reality."80 The Pulitzer Prize Board gave the award to Eric Newhouse of the Great Falls Tribune "for his vivid examination of alcohol abuse and the problems it creates in the community."81 So the Explanatory Reporting prize at the beginning of the new millennium was given to a health-related topic, - like in quite a number of previous years. 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 5, 1997, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 2. Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 6,1998, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 2. Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, March 3, 1999, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 2. Explanatory Journalism Jury Report, February 29, 2000, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 2.

192 9.3

Specialized /Beat Reporting Award

In 1985 another new award category was established, called "Specialized Reporting." This prize was defined as follows: "For a distinguished example of reporting on such specialized subjects as sports, business, science, education and religion."82 Six years later, this category was renamed "Beat Reporting" and in short defined as follows: "For a distinguished example of beat reporting."83 When the jurors of this new award met in spring of 1985 they decided on three finalists: Mike Klingaman of the Baltimore Evening Sun. His "series on alcohol abuse by high school athletes," the jury said, "goes far beyond the sports page." Another finalist was Gary S. Rosenblatt of the Baltimore Jewish Times who had submitted an analysis of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and other Jewish concerns. The result of his reporting "was a courageous, well-written and highly informative piece." Randall E. Savage and Jackie Crosby of the Macon Telegraph and News from Georgia had presented to the committee a series called "Academics vs. Athletics."84 The Pulitzer Prize Board found this story prize-worthy, so Randall Savage and Jackie Crosby won the award "for their in-depth examination of academics and athletics at the University of Georgia and the Georgia Institute of Technology."85 In 1986 Bruce Buursma of the Chicago Tribune was listed first among the jury's finalists. He was selected for his informed and clear reporting on religion, which included articles on Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II, born-again believers and the Catholic Church in Africa. William K. Robertson of the Miami Herald was praised for his literary-journalistic account of rediscovering Mark Twain's Mississippi River in honor of the hundredth anniversary of "Huckleberry Finn." Andrew Schneider and Mary Pat Flaherty of the Pittsburgh Press were the third finalists. "We read many good articles on technical medical subjects," the jurors confessed, but "none seemed to us to approach this entry."86 So thought the members of the Board and Andrew Schneider and Mary Pat Flaherty won the award "for their investigation of violations and failures in the organ transplantation system in the United States."87 The three finalists of 1987 were as follows: Angelo Cataldi of the Philadelphia Inquirer who demonstrated "a mastery of a particular subject: the 1986 season of the Philadelphia Eagles" under the new headcoach Buddy Ryan. Alex S. Jones of the New York Times was chosen for "a brilliant example of business reporting that examines with skill and sensitivity the sale of a great newspaper company and the failures of a powerful family." Irene Wielawski of the Providence Journal-Bulletin from Rhode Island was selected for medical reporting that consistently examined the human side of complex health care issues.88 The Pulitzer Prize was bestowed on Alex S. Jones of the New York Times "for The Fall of the House of Bingham,' a skillful and sensitive report of a powerful newspaper family's bickering and how it led to the sale of a famed media empire."89 In 1988 the staff of the Lexington Herald-Leader was one of four entries on the shortlist for "a finely crafted saga of the rise and fall of a most aristocratic business, the 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

Quoted from the Pulitzer Prize Journalism Entry Form, 1985. Quoted from the Pulitzer Prize Journalism Entry Form, 1991. Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 6,1985, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 20. Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 5, 1986, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 20 f. Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1987, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 21.

193

Spendthrift Farm of Kentucky," the famed horse breeders. Natalie Fobes of the Seattle Times was cited for "a brilliantly executed study of a subject with biological, economic and sociological significance," portraying the Pacific salmon's struggle to survive manmade hazards. Walt Bogdanich of the Wall Street Journal had written "a chilling series of reports on faulty testing by medical laboratories." The jury added an exhibit by Athelia Knight of the Washington Post for her reports "about the deep-routed problems in inner-city education" in Washington, D.C.90 The Pulitzer Prize was given to Walt Bogdanich of the Wall Street Journal "for his chilling series of reports on faulty testing by American medical laboratories."91 The jurors of 1989 selected, among two others, Dennis Anderson of the St. Paul Pioneer Press for his "courageous and thorough reporting that resulted in reforms in wildlife management practices and blew a whistle on a major outdoor lobbying group." Edward Humes of the Orange County Register from Santa Ana, California, had delivered "a classic example of dogged beat reporting in which an institution that fiercely resist media scrutiny is made understandable and relevant." Mike Masterson and Chuck Cook of the Arizona Republic had covered "a comprehensive examination of a growing medical and social problem that alerted the public to abuses against a largely unsuspecting population - the elderly sick."92 The Board chose Edward Humes of the Orange County Register "for his in-depth reporting on the military establishment in California."93 In 1990 the jurors had Jim Dwyer of Newsday from New York City on their shortlist. He was selected "for his series of stories and columns on safety problems and malfunctions... in the New York subways." Claire Spiegel of the Los Angeles Times was cited for "her coverage of dangerously substandard patient care (and) mismanagement... in the Los Angeles emergency health care system." Tamar Stieber of the Albuquerque Journal from New Mexico was praised by the jurors "for her persistent, enterprising reporting" about a health-related problem.9^ The Pulitzer Prize Board liked this exhibit most and gave the award to Tamar Stieber "for persistent reporting that linked a rare blood disorder to an over-the-counter dietary supplement, L-Tryptophan, and led to a national recall of the product."95 This was the last time the "Specialized Reporting" award was bestowed. When the jury members of the new "Beat Reporting" category met in the spring of 1991 they nominated the following three finalists: Natalie M. Angier of the New York Times. Her stories, in the opinion of the jurors, "made clear the complexities of science and the politics of science, never slighting the reader's interest." Scott Harper of the Capital from Annapolis in Maryland was cited for his reporting that uncovered hazing, sexual harassment and generally biased treatment of female cadets at the U.S. Naval Academy and prompted six congressional and naval investigations. David L. Shaw of the Los Angeles Times was put on the list "for consistent excellence in reporting on one of the most under-covered institutions in America, the media."96 The first winner of this new award was Natalie Angier of the New York Times "for her compelling and illuminating reports on a variety of scientific topics."97 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 2, 1988, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 21. Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 1, 1989, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 21. Specialized Reporting Jury Report, March 6, 1990, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 21. Beat Reporting Jury Report, March 6, 1991, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 21.

194

In 1992 the jury members placed an exhibit by Gregg R. Jones of the Arkansas Gazette from Little Rock on top of their shortlist. His "rural health-care effort," the jury stated, "is a fine example of clear evocative local coverage of an issue with national scope." RUSS Conway of the Eagle-Tribune from Lawrence, Massachusetts, had reported about questionable business practices in professional hockey. His work was called "an example for sportswriters around the country." Deborah L. Blum of the Sacramento Bee from California had covered "both the science and emotion on both sides of the animal research issue."98 She was made the winner of the beat reporting award "for her series 'The Monkey Wars' which explored the complex ethical and moral questions surrounding primate research."99 For the jury of 1993 Jesse Katz of the Los Angeles Times showed "extraordinary courage" in illuminating the causes and effects of Los Angeles gang life. Paul J. Ingrassia and Joseph B. White of the Wall Street Journal had delivered "a fascinating look into the boardroom" of a major motor company. Fawn Vrazo of the Philadelphia Inquirer was third on the jury's shortlist. "In a year when women's health issues are finally becoming a defined beat, she offers the most compelling, incisive and sensitive coverage we have seen," the jurors expressed.100 The Pulitzer Prize Board decided in favor of Paul Ingrassia and Joseph B. White of the Wall Street Journal "for often exclusive coverage of General Motors' management turmoil."101 In 1994 the jury members selected an exhibit by Joan Connell of the Newhouse News Service "for exceptional reporting of the challenging issue of religion that used inspired reporting and writing to explain why it is relevant and why readers should care." Eric Freedman and Jim Mitzelfeld of the Detroit News had delivered "beat reporting in the best tradition." John W. Woestendiek of the Philadelphia Inquirer in his reporting "used the struggles of one family to tell the story of the social service network and what must be done to make it better."102 The Pulitzer Prize was awarded to Eric Freedman and Jim Mitzelfeld of the Detroit News "for dogged reporting that disclosed flagrant spending abuses at Michigan's House Fiscal Agency."103 The jurors of 1995 nominated the following finalists in the beat reporting category: Michael J. Berens of the Columbus Dispatch from Ohio for a series that "exposed, through solid computer-assisted reporting and good old-fashioned shoe leather work, inequities in Ohio's justice system." Jason DeParle of the New York Times was next on the list. His "beat work covering welfare and social policy is superb..., his work was the best in terms of truly covering a beat," the jurors said. An exhibit by Tom Hallman Jr. of the Oregonian from Portland reported on the prosecution of a drunken driver convicted of killing four pedestrians.104 This time the Pulitzer Prize Board did not accept any of the jury's finalists. Instead, the award went to David M. Shribman of the Boston Globe "for his analytical reporting on Washington developments and the national scene."10^ In 1996 among the jury's finalists in this category was Robert F. Keeler of Newsday from Long Island, New York. His work was cited as "an exceptional example of contemporary beat reporting, covering in-depth, with multiple dimensions, the matters that are 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

Beat Reporting Jury Report, March 4, 1992, p. 1. Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 2. Beat Reporting Jury Report, March 3,1993, p. 1. Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 2. Beat Reporting Jury Report, March 2,1994, p. 1. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 2. Beat Reporting Jury Report, undated (March 1995), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 3.

195

most important" to people. Fred Schulte and Jenni Bergal of the Sun-Sentinel from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, had disclosed problems and abuses in the state's tax-funded Medicaid health maintenance organizations. Alison Grant of the Cleveland Plain Dealer was praised for articles uncovering corrupt dealings between contractors and city officials in the suburb of Beachwood that resulted in indictments and significant reforms.106 The winner was Bob Keeler of Newsday "for his detailed portrait of a progressive local Catholic parish and its parishioners."107 The jury members of 1997 put Byron Acohido of the Seattle Times first on their shortlist who "showed remarkable courage in publishing his exhaustive reporting and analysis that spotlighted problems" of a Boeing jetliner. J. Craig Flournoy of the Dallas Morning News described in his stories "an agency that misspent and hoarded tens of millions of dollars intended to help the city's poorest residents." Celia W. Dugger of the New York Times had published a "moving and detailed account of the agony and despair of a young Togolese woman who found herself jailed in the U.S. in humiliating conditions after she fled her country to avoid the tribal ritual of genital mutilation."108 The award went to Byron Acohido of the Seattle Times "for his coverage of the aerospace industry, notably an exhaustive investigation of rudder control problems on the Boeing 737, which contributed to new FAA requirements for major improvements."109 In 1998 the finalists in the Beat Reporting category were: Keith Bradsher of the New York Times for his reporting that disclosed safety and environmental problems posed by sport utility vehicles and other light trucks. Jason DeParle also of the New York Times, was cited for his coverage of the successes and frustrations of the national effort to reform welfare. Laurie Garrett of Newsday from Long Island, New York, explored "the horrifying state of health care" in the regions of the former Soviet Union. "In terms of sheer reporting," the juror stated, "this work far surpasses all that we saw" during the selection process.110 But the Pulitzer Prize Board did not share the jury's opinion: none of the three finalists got the award. Instead, the prize went to Linda J. Greenhouse of the New York Times "for her consistently illuminating coverage of the United States Supreme Court."111 For the jurors of 1999 one of the favorites was Barton Gellman of the Washington Post for his penetrating coverage of the inner workings of the United Nations Special Commission as it sought to inspect and disarm Iraqi weapons, which was "one of the most important issues" of the previous year. Blair Kamin of the Chicago Tribune was praised for his lucid coverage of city architecture, including an influential series supporting the development of Chicago's lakefront area. Chuck Philips and Michael A. Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times "treated an industry equated with fluff as worthy of substantive coverage and produced groundbreaking reporting that got results."112 They won the award "for their stories on corruption in the entertainment industry, including a charity sham sponsored by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, illegal detoxification programs for wealthy celebrities, and a resurgence of radio payola."113 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113

Beat Reporting Jury Report, March 6, 1996, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cil., p. 3. Beat Reporting Jury Report, March 5, 1997, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 3. Beat Reporting Jury Report, March 6, 1998, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 3. Beat Reporting Jury Report, March 3, 1999, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 2.

196 In 2000 the Beat Reporting jurors selected the following three finalists: David Cay Johnston of the New York Times for his lucid coverage of problems resulting from the reorganization of the Internal Revenue Service, "showing significant, substantial beat reporting on all levels." Robert O'Harrow Jr. of the Washington Post was put on that list for his innovative stories on threats to personal privacy in the digital age, a work that was called "groundbreaking." George Dohrmann of the St. Paul Pioneer Press was praised by the jury for his "careful, courageous reporting (that) produced results."114 Dohrmann received the prize "for his determined reporting, despite negative reader reaction, that revealed academic fraud in the men's basketball program at the University of Minnesota."115 So a sports-related topic won the award right at the beginning of the new millennium.

114 Beat Reporting Jury Report, March 1, 2000, pp. 1 ff. 115 Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit. p. 2.

197 10.

PRIZES FOR PICTORIAL JOURNALISM AREAS

The testament of Joseph Pulitzer did not designate specific awards for illustrated works among the several prizes intended for outstanding journalistic achievements. After adding a new Pulitzer Prize for "Editorial Cartooning" in the early twenties,1 it still took roughly another two decades before it was taken into consideration to honor the field of photo-journalism as well. In the meantime the status of the press photographer had changed completely as the work of this group of men and women had advanced from being of minor importance to providing substantial support for the reputation of all newspapers. "The photographer," an author once vividly described the change that had occurred, "became a reporter in his own medium, a photo story teller, a photo essayist, a photo analyst."2 As a consequence, in the early Fourties a "Photography" prize was created which covered all forms of picture journalism. In the late Sixties this general photography category was split into two separate prizes, called "Spot News Photography" and "Feature Photography."

10.1

Photography Award

Attitudes like these on part of the journalism publishing business thus might have contributed to the fact that a Pulitzer Prize for "Photography" was first established only as late as 1942.·* As the exact reasons that led to the creation of that award, during the troubled times of World War II are no longer available,4 it can only be presumed that in those years an increasing use of photographs in the press encouraged such a decision. When this new prize was presented for the first time, the definition for the award read as follows: "For an outstanding example of news photography as exemplified by a news photograph published in a daily newspaper. "^ With this very general characterization of the prize at hand the jurors in the spring of 1942 went to work and with a sense of great satisfaction remarked in their report: "This prize, awarded for the first time this year, attracted 109 entries... The number of pictures submitted was even greater, since many competitors submitted more than one photograph. This enthusiastic response amply justifies (the) establishment of the prize. An award to a single photograph, however," the jury begged to consider, "offers a number of difficulties. Other competitions... divide their awards into several classifications. By contrast the Advisory Board has to choose not only among individual photographs but also among types of pictures like spot news (including horror pictures), feature, pictorial, personalities, and sports photographs. The problem becomes one of picking a representative scene. This will necessarily omit the other categories, some of which (like sports) 1 Cf. Heinz-D. Fischer/Erika J. Fischer (Eds.), The Pulitzer Prize Archive, Vol. 13: Editorial Cartoon Awards, 1922-1997, Munich 1999, pp. XXI ff. 2 Julius H. Klyman, Photography Awards, in: Columbia Library Columns (New York), Vol. VI/ No. 3, May 1957, pp. 28 f. 3 Cf. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes. A History of the Awards in Books, Drama, Music, and Journalism, New York - London 1974, p. 134. 4 Letter from Edward M. Kliment, Assistant Administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes, Columbia University to the authors, August 9, 1999, p. 1. 5 Nomination form for a Pulitzer Prize in Journalism, Columbia University 1942, p. 1.

198 occupy much of the news photographer's time, and interest a large section of the public. There is a further problem," the members of the jury ended their basic reflections, "of choosing a photograph representative of the calendar year 1941, a year in which we were half in and half out of the war."6 "With these considerations in mind," the jury report of 1942 added in another passage, "we commend to the Advisory Board the following eleven photographs... 1. 'God Forbid the Day when a Bunch of Floggers Can Intimidate the Free Press of a State,' by Guy Hayes of the Atlanta Journal; 2. Ά U.S. Ship Is Torpedoed,' by James E. Earle of the New York Daily News; 3. 'German Spy,' by Morris Engel of PM Newspaper; 4. 'Lewis and Murray Leave Coal Conference,' by B. H. Rollins of Wide World Photos; 5. 'Ford Strikers Riot,' by Milton Brooks of the Detroit News; 6. 'King George V.,' by John Hammar of the New York Daily News; 7. 'Angels of Mercy,' by Ira Rosenberg of the New York Herald Tribune; 8. 'Good-Bye, My Son,1 by Martin J. Cooney of the Decatur Herald & Review; 9. 'There Was No Guard,' by Tony Oreb of the Los Angeles Examiner; 10. 'Ginger's Joyful Tears,' by Felix Paegel of the Los Angeles Examiner; 11. 'Foul into the Stands', by Murray Becker of the Associated Press Newsphoto Service."7 This posed considerable problems for the Advisory Board. In the end, it decided in favor of a picture that had been described by the jurors in the following words: "This brutal picture comes closest to the category of horror pictures of which, of course, a considerable number are included in the nominations... It sums up much of the labor history of 1941..."8 The photograph in question was the fifth on the jury's list. It was called 'Ford Strikers Riot' and won the Pulitzer Prize in the end, meaning that Milton Brooks of the Detroit News was honored for outstanding news photography.9 The jury of 1943 had to deal with an unexpected situation as it imparted in a confidential letter to the President of Columbia University, "that the nominations received in this category... are unsatisfactory. After consultation... it was decided to extend the date for the submitting of news photographs to March 31 (1943) and through Editor & Publisher" the leading journalism magazine, "to attract a larger and more representative exhibit."10 Whereas in the beginning only 20 submissions had come in, after this extension of the deadline, which was accompanied by encouraging action by eminent members of the journalistic trade, the jury could contentedly summarize as soon as early April that "the total number of news photographs received to date for Pulitzer Prize consideration is now 128."11 All in all the 1943 jury deemed ten photographs to be prize-worthy and arranged them on her short-list according to their subject matter: Two nominations belonged to the field of "crime", another two each were of the genres of "horror" and "personality". Seven pictures depicted moments of "war", among them, presented here in the ranking provided by the jury's short-list: 1. 'Water!,1 by Frank Noel of the Associated Press; 2. 'Safe Return,' by Jack Rice of the Associated Press; 3. 'Morocco,' by Samuel Schulman of International News Photos; 4. 'Blister View,' by Samuel Shere of International News Photos; 5. 'Magazine of the U.S.S. Shaw Explodes;1 6. 'U.S.S. West Virginia Aflame,' as well as 7. 'Naval Air Station.' The last three photographs mentioned were all part of an 6 7 8 9 10 11

Photography Jury Report, undated (Spring 1942), pp. 1 f. Ibid., pp. 2 ff. Ibid.,p.3. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes 1917-1991, New York 1991, p. 44. Letter to Columbia University President Nicholas M. Butler, New York, March 18, 1943, p. 1. Photography Jury Report, April 2,1943, p. 1.

199

entry by "Official U.S. Navy Photographers," that did not give the names of the respective men who had taken those pictures.12 The Advisory Board voted for the photograph ranking first on the list of war photography and declared Frank Noel of the Associated Press the winner of the Pulitzer Prize for his picture 'Water!'13 The jury of 1944 had to sift through 84 photographs that had been submitted, and once again, as could be expected, the material at hand was dominated by pictures dealing with various aspects of World War II. "In our judgment," the members of the jury wrote in their report, "two photographs hold top ranking among the entries. Although both are war pictures, they differ widely in theme, and no attempt is made by the committee to reach a decision between them. The two pictures are these: 1. 'Tarawa Island,' by Frank Filan of the Associated Press; 1. 'Wounded Soldier Receiving Blood Plasma,1 by a Signal Corps photographer of the United States Army. Mr. Filan's Picture," the jury report continues, "taken under extremely difficult conditions, depicts the awful carnage of Tarawa in gruesome detail. It is not a picture for weak stomachs, but in its stark realism it tells a true story of war at its ugliest..."14 Besides these two favorites for the prize the jurors also mentioned seven additional photographs "as alternate recommendations," among them in third place a picture named 'Homecoming' by Earle L. Bunker of the Omaha World-Herald showing a seven-year-old girl falling into her father's arms after he had been away in the military for 16 months.'^ The Advisory Board this time decided to split the photography award and bestowed the prize in equal parts on Frank Filan of the Associated Press for his photograph Tarawa Island,' as well as on Earle L. Bunker of the Omaha World-Herald for his subject 'Homecoming.'16 In 1945 the jury had to choose among 41 entries from nine American states. "I suggest," the chairman wrote in his report, "the following seven photographs as the best from the standpoint of news reported, news value of subjects portrayed, and the quality of action present or implied: 1. 'Family Reading of Son's Parachute Landing,' by Victor Peterson of the Indianapolis Times; 2. 'American Soldiers Marching under the Arc de Triomphe,' by Peter J. Carroll of the Associated Press; 3. 'Gun Crew in Action in Rain Storm,' by Frank Prist of Acme Pictures; 4. 'Fan from Japan,' by David Mann of the Chicago Sun; 5. 'Sewell Avery Carried from His Office by Two Soldiers,' by Harry Hall of the Associated Press; 6. 'Warrior's Return - a Wounded Veteran Greeting Family,' by Morris Neufeld of International News Photos, as well as 7. 'Crowd Crouching from Snipers' Fire in Paris,' by Andy Lopez of Acme Pictures."^ In addition the jury presented another group of six photographs that also had to be considered "excellent news shots,"18 although with regards to their impact they could not be compared with the seven pictures on top of his list. The Advisory Board, however, for the first time in this category made use of its basic right not to select any of the jury's recommendations and gave the award to a photographer who had not even been mentioned on the jury's shortlist. And so the Pulitzer Prize of 1945 went to the "Photograph of the Marines Planting the American Flag on Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima," shot by Joe Rosenthal of the Associated Press.^ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Ibid., pp. 3-7. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 44. Photography Jury Report, March 20,1944, pp. 1 f. Ibid.,pp.2 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 44. Photography Jury Report, March 10, 1945, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 44.

200 PLANTING THE AMERICAN FLAG ON IWO JIMA by Joe Rosenthal

Pulitzer Prize for Photography, 1945 As the Rosenthal picture was taken in February 1945, it actually should not have been eligible for the award of the same year. But "when the Advisory Board met on April 27, 1945," as John Hohenberg explains the decision, "it swept aside the technicality that only

201 photographs taken in 1944 were eligible for the 1945 prize. Rosenthal's was the picture that had dominated the front page of almost every American daily newspaper, that had been reprinted abroad, that had touched off a wave of patriotic pride in American fighting men rarely matched in American history."20 The jurors of 1946 narrowed down the competition from 44 entries all in all to the following six prize-worthy finalists: a) 'They Have No Home,1 by Conrad Mercurie of the Los Angeles Examiner; b) 'Rigor Mortis,' by Carmen Reporto of the Chicago Sun; c) 'And That These Honored Dead,' by David Mann of the Chicago Sun; d) 'Who Is That Man?,' by David Mann of the Chicago Sun; e) 'Daddy! Daddy! Daddy!,' by Caroline Valentina of the Houston Post, as well as f) 'Jap Surrenders in Jungle,' by Dave Davis of Acme Newspictures?1 Yet again the Advisory Board was not inclined to accept any of the chosen finalists mentioned in the jury report, but opted instead for "no award" in the photography category.22 In 1947 a new jury took on the task of selecting from the entries submitted and suggested Arnold Hardy, an amateur photographer from Atlanta, who finally won "for his photo of girl leaping to death in hotel fire, distributed by the Associated Press. "23 Different jurors went to work in 1948. This time the Advisory Board declared Frank Gushing of the Boston Traveler to be the winner of the Pulitzer Prize "for his photo 'Boy Gunman and Hostage.'"24 The 1949 jury that had to decide upon which photograph was the most outstanding achievement in 1949 was once again made up of completely new members, and the Advisory Board chose Nathaniel Fein of the New York HeraldTribune, whose extraordinary picture 'Babe Ruth Bows Out'25 thus became the first sports-themed photograph to be honored with the award.26 The jury of 1950 "eliminated all but six entries," as they explained in their report, because they were of the opinion "that 1949 was not a great picture year."27 Therefore, their list of finalists consisted merely of 'Flight from Flames,' by Varner M. Gould of the Kalamazoo Gazette; 'Death on the Potomac,' by Gene Jones of the Washington Post; 'Portrait of a Breaking Heart,' by George Mattson of the New York Daily News; Oil Truck Driver Trapped in the Flames,1 by J. F. McBride and Russell S. Reed of the Oakland Tribune; 'President and Mrs. Truman at the Army-Navy Football Game,' by Herbert White of the Associated Press, as well as a photo sequence entitled 'Skid Row,' by a team of the Chicago Daily News?·* But the Advisory Board was once again not satisfied with any of the proposals and instead gave the award to a picture with the title 'Near Collision at Air Show,' by Bill Crouch of the Oakland Tribune, that had not even been mentioned in the jury report.29 In 1951 the jury presented a list of five recommendations as follows: (1) 'Flight of Refugees across Wrecked Bridge in Korea,' by Max Desfor of the Associated Press as part of an album of 56 Korean warfront pictures; (2) 'Death on Truman Road,' by Joseph D. Wellington of the Kansas City Star; (3) 'Spiritual Aid for a Soldier,' by Max Desfor of 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 185 f. Photography Jury Report, April 5,1946, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 44. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Cf. Heinz-D. Fischer: Sports Journalism At Its Best. Pulitzer Prize-Winning Articles, Cartoons, and Photographs, Chicago 1995, pp. 32 ff. 27 Photography Jury Report, undated (March 1950), p. 1. 28 Ibid.,pp.2tt. 29 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 44.

202 the Associated Press; (4) 'Good-Byes Come Hard,' by Harry W. Batz Jr., of the Hartford Courant, as well as (5) The Sun is Loaded,' by William Wallace of the New York Daily News?0 "The Korean warfront pictures taken by Max Desfor of the Associated Press," as the jury justified their odds-on favorite, "represent camera reporting of so outstanding a nature as to sweep aside any single-shot entries of the... competition. Any single selection from this album would leave out many equally worthy shots and would not convey the comprehensive and distinguished nature of Desfor's work."31 Faced with this commendation the Advisory Board consented and bestowed the Pulitzer Prize on Max Desfor of the Associated Press for his photographic coverage of the Korean War, an outstanding example for which was 'Flight of Refugees across Wrecked Bridge in Korea.'32 The selection process of the jury in 1952 resulted in the second win for a sportsthemed entry in the history of this prize category.33 The team of John Robinson and Don Ultang of the Des Moines Register and Tribune received the award "for their sequence of six pictures of the Drake-Oklahoma A & M football game... in which player Johnny Bright's jaw was broken."34 The jury of 1953 "agreed upon five" finalists they "liked best" which are given here in alphabetical order by photographer: 'Battle Casualties' and 'Return from Triangle Hill,' by Dave Cicero of the International News Service; 'Queen Elizabeth,' by Charles J. Dawson of United Press; 'Adlai's Worn Sole,' by William M. Gallagher of the Flint Journal; 'Half-Inch from Death,' by Ossie Le Viness of the New York Daily News, and 'Leap from the Bridge,' by Robert Wendlinger of the New York Mirror.35 In addition the jurors suggested another six candidates, while making clear that they regarded these as inferior to the group listed at the very beginning of their report.36 In the end the Advisory Board decided to give the award to William M. Gallagher of the Flint Journal "for a photo of Ex-Governor Adlai E. Stevenson with a hole in his shoe."37 In 1954 the Advisory Board selected a female amateur photographer from California, Virginia Schau. She received the Pulitzer Prize "for snapping a thrilling rescue at Redding, Ca., the picture being published in the Akron Beacon Journal and other newspapers and nationally distributed by the Associated Press. "38 When the awards were discussed in 1955, the members of the jury put together a list of five finalists that read as follows: (1) 'Sequence (of) pictures of a sensational catch... in the.... World Series,' by John Lindsay and Mathew Zimmerman of the Associated Press; (2) The Shooting of a Dangerous Escaped Mental Patient,' by Chris Button and Louis Oberste Jr., distributed by the Associated Press; (3) 'Eclipse over Minneapolis,' by Roy Swan of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune; (4) Tragedy in the Surf,' by John L. Gaunt Jr., of the Los Angeles Times; (5) 'Hurricane Carol,' by Charles Flagg of the Quincy Patriot Ledger?9 The jury also recommended to "review the rules governing this category... Limiting the award to 'an outstanding example of news photography as exemplified by a news photograph'... arbitrarily restricts the number of entries and thus 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Photography Jury Report, undated (March 1951), p. 1. Ibid., p. 2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 44. Cf. Heinz-D. Fischer, Sports Journalism At Its Best, op. cit., pp. 34 ff. Columbia University, TTie Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 44. Photography Jury Report, March 10, 1953, p. 1. Ibid., pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 44. Ibid.,p.44. Photography Jury Report, undated (March 1955), pp. 1 f.

203 may make it impossible to recognize outstanding achievements and contributions to the whole field of news photography... We do not necessarily advocate more prizes, but rather a broadening of the category."40 The Advisory Board did not react to these proposals and awarded the prize to John L. Gaunt Jr., of the Los Angeles Times for a photo that was poignant and profoundly moving, entitled Tragedy by the Sea.'41 In 1956 the jury presented these ten finalists: (1) 'Rescue,1 by John Grosevich of the Scranlon Times; (2) 'Alone,1 by Harvey Webber of Newsday; (3) 'Flood Disaster,1 by Peter Carroll of the Associated Press; (4) Torn and Gutted,1 by Henry F. Murphy of the Hartford Times; (5) 'Ship Hits Bridge,' by James R. Burbage of the Charleston Evening Post; (6) 'Boston Prison Riot," by Eugene Dixon and Oliver Noonan of the Boston American; (7) 'Skowron versus Campanella,' by Harry Harris of the Associated Press, (8) The Walls Came Tumbling down,1 by Robert Kennedy of Philadelphia; (9) 'Destruction,' by Jerry A. Clark of the Wichita Beacon, as well as (10) "Wrong Evening,' by Joe Mastruzzo of the Chicago American.^ "In addition," the jury report continues verbatim, "the jurors strongly recommend special recognition for consistent excellent picture coverage by a newspaper staff. For consideration, the jurors cite the staff entry from the New York Daily News entered as a group... As a typical example therein the jurors cite... 'Bomber Crashes in Street,'" by George Mattson of that newspaper.43 The award went to a group of photographers of the New York Daily News for its consistently excellent news picture coverage, an outstanding example of which was its photo 'Bomber Crashes in Street.'44 The jurors of 1957 included ten submissions on their shortlist from the beginning, namely Harry A. Trask of the Boston Traveler, Ira Rosenberg of the New York HeraldTribune, Arthur Rickerby of United Press Newspictures, Robert H. Laird of the New York Journal-American, Joe Holloway Jr. of the Montgomery Advertiser-Journal, Don Tompkins of the Santa Monica Outlook, Charles Vendetti of the Hartford Times, Hal Mathewson of the New York Daily News, Paul Bernius of the New York Daily News, as well as Walter Kelleher of the New York Daily News.45 The photographer ranking first on this list, Harry A. Trask, was clearly the favorite of the jury, not because of a single picture, but because of a series of four photographs.46 The Advisory Board accepted this proposition, and so Harry A. Trask of the Boston Traveler received the coveted award "for his dramatic and outstanding photographic sequence of the sinking of the liner Andrea Doria" in the Atlantic.47 In 1958 the members of the jury made it abundantly clear right at the very beginning of their report that they were "disappointed at the calibre of entries, which impressed us as being far below the standards of recent years."4** Nevertheless, the jurors decided to present the following five single entries that were deemed to be acceptable to at least some degree: "1. 'Hatred in Prejudice,' by William P. Straeter... of the Associated Press. Of all the pictures taken in the course of the troubles at Little Rock this one, in our opinion, best sums up the story of the great American dilemma...; 2. The Kick in the Ribs,' by Wil Counts of the Arkansas Democrat...; 3. 'Hoodlum in True Colors,' by 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Ibid.,pp.2 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 44. Photography Jury Report, undated (March 1956), p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 45. Photography Jury Report, March 12, 1957, p. 2. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 45. Photography Jury Report, undated (March 1958), p. 1.

204 James Mahan of International News Photos...; 4. 'Faith and Confidence,' by William C. Beall of the Washington Daily News. A Policeman talking understandingly to a twoyear-old boy trying to cross a street at parade time. An appealing picture which made a profound impression on readers; 5. 'Dirty Face,' by Eldred C. Reaney of the Nashville Tennessean. An appealing photograph, but an appallingly poor print."49 The report contained two additional suggestions for group awards, citing the New York Daily News as well as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch,50 but the Advisory Board voted in favor of the photographer ranking fourth on the jury's short-list. This is how the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding photographic achievement went to William C. Beall of the Washington Daily News for his photograph 'Faith and Confidence.'51 The jury of 1959 had to look through more than 200 photos before being able to narrow down the competition to the following finalists: First on this list was "Henry L. Griffin of the Associated Press: All four prints in this entry, a photographic report of the demonstration in Caracas, Venezuela, against Vice-President Richard Nixon, are excellent... This entry.... records an incident of great international significance... Second in the judgment of your jurors," the report continues, "is Stephen Lasker of the Chicago American, a single picture showing a Chicago fireman carrying a boy's body from the... school fire... Third... is... William Seaman of the Minneapolis Star. All of the elements of the tragedy of sudden death of a child were caught by the cameraman in this expressive photograph. Fourth choice is a series of pictures of a bus tragedy, by Billy Davis of the Louisville Courier Journal... Fifth choice is a sports picture by Edward Feeney of the Chicago Tribune."52 The Advisory Board was most impressed by one of those two pictures that depicted events that had deadly consequences for children, and thus, in the end, it was William Seaman of the Minneapolis Star, ranking third on the jurors' list, who received the prize "for his dramatic photograph of the sudden death of a child in the street."53 After examining all the submissions on hand the jury of 1960 had only one clear favorite that was obvious. "The outstanding example of news photography," it can be read in the report, "is the series of 28 photographs taken by a team of Associated Press news photographers covering the Khrushchev tour of the United States. The exhibit included several pictures of outstanding dramatic merit... The following entries," it is stated later on, "show excellent photo coverage of single incidents...: 1. The series showing a fatal canoe accident taken by a 20-year-old student, Donald Nevin, and submitted to the Boston Globe; 2. One of four in a series, the photo we picked was taken by Andrew Lopez... of the United Press International. It shows a priest comforting a condemned Cuban; 3. A picture of a four-year-old distressed that he cannot go to school with his pals, taken by Eugene Hackley... for the Los Angeles Mirror-News; 4. ... A series of six pictures showing the payoff to a grand jury foreman. The pictures were taken by the Atlanta Journal and the Atlanta Constitution staffs; 5. An outstanding example of sequence photography showing a baseball player being drenched with beer spilled by an excited spectator in a World Series game at Chicago. The sequence was taken by Chicago Tribune photographer Raymond Gora."54 The Advisory Board was not 49 50 51 52 53 54

Ibid., pp. 1 f. Ibid.,vp.2f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 45. Photography Jury Report, March 13,1959, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 45. Photography Jury Report, undated (March 1960), p. 1.

205 at all impressed by the suggestion at the top of the list but rather chose the photographer ranking second. Thus it announced that Andrew Lopez of United Press International was winner of the Pulitzer Prize "for his series of four photographs of a corporal, formerly of Dictator Batista's army, who was executed by a Castro firing squad, the principal picture showing the condemned man receiving last rites."55 Without giving any explanation as to how they had arrived at their selection, the jury of 1961 just briefly presented the following list of finalists recommended for the award: Tokyo Stabbing,' by Yasushi Nagao... and distributed by United Press International; 'Indianapolis Grandstand Collapse,' by J. Parke Randall; 'Boy Survivor of Brooklyn Air Crash,' by Paul Bernius of the New York Daily News; 'Algerian Riot,' by Claude Palmer and distributed by the Associated Press; 'Boat Accident,' by Dan Hightower of the St. Petersburg Times; 'Caroline Kennedy and her Birthday,' by James Atherton and distributed by United Press International.56 The Advisory Board had no problems at all in arriving at the decision that the Pulitzer Prize should go to the first suggestion on that list, and so Yasushi Nagao was honored for his photograph Tokyo Stabbing,' distributed by United Press International and widely printed in American newspapers.57 The short-list of 1962 used even less words as the jurors did not even bother to give any information about the medium for which the final four contestants were working. As a result, the jury report imparts comparatively few details: 'Serious Steps' - Eisenhower and Kennedy confer at the time of the Cuban crisis, by Paul Athis (recte: Vathis!); Turned Away1 - West Berlin, by Edwin Reichert; 'Duty,' by Horst Faas; 'Leap to Freedom,' by Peter Leibing.58 The Advisory Board once again chose the person ranking first, and this is why the Pulitzer Prize went to Paul Vathis of the Associated Press for his photograph 'Serious Steps.'59 In stark contrast to the previous year, the jury report of 1963 contained much more information and a more thorough explanation with regard to the motives of the jury. Right on top of their list was an entry with the title 'Aid From The Padre,' by Hector Rondon. "The jury is unanimous and enthusiastic in its selection of the priest holding the soldier wounded in the Venezuelan insurrection," the jurors stated verbatim, adding: "In drama, impact, composition, to say nothing of the dangers faced by the photographer in making this remarkable shot, there seems to be no question of this being the year's top news picture. The remainder of Mr. Rondon's submitted work taken during this period of fighting is of similarly high quality and underscores the difficulties he encountered."60 Moreover, three single shots impressed the jurors as good on-the-spot work: 'Man Alone,' by Richard Swanson of the Des Moines Register; 'Youngster in a Hurry,' by James Alfred Walker Jr. of the Portsmouth Ledger-Star, and 'Beach Frolic,' by Bill B. Beebe of the Los Angeles Times.61 The Advisory Board did not hesitate to bestow the award on the lavishly praised AP photographer Hector Rondon "for his remarkable picture... 'Aid From The Padre,1 distributed by the Associated Press."^

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 45. Photography Jury Report, March 10, 1961, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 45. Photography Jury Report, March 9, 1962, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 45. Photography Jury Report, undated (March 1963), p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 45.

206 The jurors in 1964 began their report with several basic reflections concerning their function as jurors.63 Then they ranked five finalists as follows: Robert H. Jackson of the Dallas Times Herald; his entry was characterized very briefly as 'Ruby Shooting Oswald.' The next spot on the list was held by William Hudson of the Associated Press who had submitted a picture with the caption 'Police Dog Lunges at Negro in Race Demonstration at Birmingham.' Ranking third was Harry Leder of United Press International with a photograph depicting how 'John Kennedy Jr., salutes his father.' Horst Faas of the Associated Press was presented as fourth finalist for his picture The War in Viet Nam.' Robert Schutz of the Associated Press with a photograph showing 'John F. Kennedy Jr.,' as well as Frank Cancellare of United Press International, whose subject had been 'Caroline Kennedy' also made it on the short-list, both ranking fifth.64 The Advisory Board awarded the Pulitzer Prize to Robert H. Jackson of the Dallas Times Herald "for his photograph of the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby."65 After deciding on its recommendations for 1965, the members of the photo jury presented the following list of suggestions to the Advisory Board: "First choice: a portfolio on the Vietnam war by Associated Press photographer Horst Faas. The jury was struck by the richness and diversity of the photographer's work, consisting on the one hand of spot pictures, made in the midst of violent action, laden with the drama of the instant, and on the other hand, a series of studies filled with artistry, compassion and deep sensitivity to the tragic environment of war. Second choice: 'Blind Child,' by Dom Ligato of the Philadelphia Bulletin. Like everyone else who saw the picture, the jury was gripped by the marvelous paradox of joy emerging from tragedy."66 In addition to these two favorites the jurors also gave "additional recommendations without order of preference" as follows: 'Riot Scene in Philadelphia,' by Frank Johnston of United Press International. This photograph was described as containing "sardonic, gusty humor in a scene of violence." 'Scranton Children' by Henry Burroaghs of the Associated Press showed "the harm of grieved youngsters being good sports." A picture with the title 'Mississippi Notebook,' by Henry Gill of the Chicago Daily News was regarded as "a distinguished photographic essay portraying an entire environment of struggle."67 Once more the Advisory Board accepted the proposition ranking first on the jury's list, thus giving the award to Horst Faas of the Associated Press "for his combat photography of the war in South Vietnam."68 The jury of 1966 voiced complaints in the report that they "were disappointed by the relatively small number of quality entries."69 Despite all these problems, however, they were able to draw up a list of five suggestions all together that was ranked and contained the following statements: "1. 'Portfolio on Viet Nam,' by Kyoichi Sawada, United Press International photographer; 2. Twin Tornado,' by Paul W. Huffman of the Elkhart Truth; 3. 'Murder in Santo Domingo,' a sequence by James A. Bourdier of the Associated Press; 4. 'Watts,1 a staff portfolio from the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner" although in this case the jurors added that "proof of publication is incomplete." 5. 'Gun Battle,' by Robert Redding of the San Diego Union. Once again the members of the jury gave an 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

Photography Jury Report, undated (March 1964), p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 45. Photography Jury Report, March 4, 1965, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 45. Photography Jury Report, March 3, 1966, p. 1.

207 additional comment, stressing that: "We consider this superior to the similar entry by John A. Sund from the same newspaper."70 The Advisory Board's choice was Kyoichi Sawada of United Press International "for his combat photography of the war in Vietnam during 1965."71 In 1967 the jurors at work introduced a novelty to the photography category by giving in detail the results of how each of them had voted in choosing the remaining six finalists. According to their report Jack R. Thoraell of the Associated Press and his picture 'Meredith Wounded' had received "three votes for first place and two for second." Horst Faas of the Associated Press earned only one vote for first place and three votes for third place for a photograph with the title 'Watery Cover.' Another picture by the same photographer called 'Marine Helicopter Crash' received one vote each for second to fifth place. A series of photographs consisting of various motifs, titled 'Attending the Wounded' by Henri Huet of the Associated Press, had to be content with one vote for fourth place, two votes for fifth place and one vote for sixth place. One entry by John J. Walther of the Miami Herald, who had submitted a 'Labor Riot Series,' ranked third with one juror as well as fourth and sixth respectively with two other members of the jury.72 The Advisory Board declared Jack R. Thornell of the Associated Press as winner of the Pulitzer Prize "for his picture of the shooting of James Meredith in Mississippi by a roadside rifleman."73 In 1968, when the Pulitzer Prize for photography could reflect on twenty-five years of existence, a major change was about to take place. Some of the jurors of the preceding years had pointed out the difficulties that arose because the given definition of the "photography" award did not sufficiently specify how to classify the content of the submitted pictures. As a sort of "general photography" award it was open to several, even contrasting ways of interpretation. To solve this problem at least to some degree, in 1968 the Photography category was divided into two groups, 'Spot News Photography' and 'Feature Photography.'74

10.2

Spot I Breaking News Photography Award

The first of the two new prize categories in 1968 was defined as follows: "For an outstanding example of spot news photography in black and white or color, which may consist of a photograph or photographs, a sequence or an album."7^ When the jury of this new category came together, it had to interprete this award description and came to the following three finalists: 1. 'Detroit Riot,1 portfolio of twenty pictures, by Ira Rosenberg of the Detroit Free Press; 2. 'The Kiss of Life,' single photo and sequence, by Rocco Morabito of the Jacksonville Journal; 3. 'Beyond Help,' a sequence of four pictures, by Catherine Leroy of the Associated Fresst The Advisory Board gave the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding spot news photography to Rocco Morabito of the Jacksonville Journal for his photograph The Kiss of Life.'77 70 Ibid. 71 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 45. 72 Photography Jury Report, undated (March 1967), p. 1. 73 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 45.

74 Ibid. 75 Quoted from the Entry Form of the 1968 Pulitzer Prizes. 76 Spot News Photography Jury Report, undated (March 1968), p. 1. 77 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 46.

208 In 1969 the jury recommended the following five entries: "1. 'Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy,'... by Ron Bennett of United Press International... The jurors felt," they explained, "that Bennett, operating under chaotic conditions and great emotional pressure, still produced a historic record of a major event in American political history...; 2. 'Execution in Saigon,1 by Edward T. Adams of the Associated Press. The entry described this as 'the picture that shook the world.' There is no doubt that its publication in American newspapers influenced the country's evaluation of our position and commitment in Vietnam; 3. 'Kicking and Beating of Hoffa Foe,' by Joseph F. Weidelman of the Detroit News. The jurors recognized that these pictures would not have been possible if the photographer had not... accepted the personal risk involved in the best traditions of American journalism; 4. 'Mrs. Martin Luther King and daughter, Bernice,' by Moneta Sleet at (Ebony magazine) (the) funeral of Dr. Martin Luther King. This poignant photograph shows the strength of the woman, the comforting of the child and her dignity in the face of deep, personal grief... 5. The Breath of Life,' by William H. Potter, a free-lance photographer (of)... the Boston Globe. These pictures of a white fireman attempting to breathe life into a black baby show eloquently the human equation which lies beneath every confrontation where life and death hang in the balance."78 The Advisory Board announced the person ranking second, Edward T. Adams of the Associated Press, as winner of the Pulitzer Prize for his photograph 'Saigon Execution.'79 The jury of 1970 chose five finalists, ranking them as follows: First place was given to 'Campus Guns,' by Steve Starr of the Associated Press. We "strongly recommend this picture for the Pulitzer Prize," the jurors wrote, "because the event marked one of the main turning points in a year of campus turmoil. This picture had major impact on later events because it marked the first time that campus protesters were openly armed." In second place there was 'Chicago Events - 1969,' by Paul Sequeira of the Chicago Daily News. The jury had selected three motifs of the whole entry as exemplary characterizing it with the following additional remark: "Although good pictures, none of these has, in the opinion of the jury, the major news value or picture impact that the First Place choice has." Ranking third was 'Melee at Columbia,' by John Duricka of the Associated Press. This entry was cited for its "dramatic impact from an important news event." The jurors then put in fourth place 'War Tears,' by Horst Faas of the Associated Press, which was described briefly as: "Dramatic picture of death without being too grisly." The last of the five suggestions concerned Tap Day on the Campus,' by Dave Kennedy of United Press International, and that submission offered a "good panorama of violent action at student demonstration."80 The entry by Steve Starr was picked by the Advisory Board in the end, and so the photographer of the Associated Press won the award for his news photo taken at Cornell University, 'Campus Guns.'81 In 1971 the jurors came up with a list of three suggestions, ranking several pictures taken by John Paul Filo of the Valley Daily News & Daily Dispatch of Tarentum, Pa., first. The jury stressed that this photographic achievement represented "the unanimous first choice" as "the entry demonstrates the photographer's enterprise and professionalism." In second place there were photographs shot by Jim Kean and Roger Alan Bockrath of the Independent-Journal. Third on the jury's list was the work of Ron 78 79 80 81

Spot News Photography Jury Report, undated (March 1969), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 46. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 5, 1970, pp. 2 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 46.

209 Moscati of the Buffalo Courier-Express, characterized as "a spectacularly successful job of photo coverage of a basic local news event."82 In the end, the award for outstanding spot news photography went to John Paul Filo of the Valley Daily News & Daily Dispatch of Tarentum, Pa., "for his pictorial coverage of the Kent State University tragedy" in the previous year.83 The jury of 1972 wrote in their report that the Pulitzer Prize should be bestowed on Horst Faas and Michel Laurent of the Associated Press for their series 'Death in Dacca.' It was "easily the first choice of the jury" and was characterized as follows: "The two execution pictures, among (them) five which were censored, and later published, had tremendous impact." Gerry C. Wolter of the Cincinnati Enquirer reached second position on the jury's list for his photograph That's My Dad!' It showed how "a son stands over the body of his slain father." Mel Finkelstein of the New York Daily News was the third-placed proposal of the jurors; he had been selected for his picture 'All in the Family of Man,' which had captured the moment when "delegates from Communist China are seated for the first time in the United Nations." Ranking fourth was Frank G. Hanes of Chicago Today for his entry 'Why was Novice in Pace Car?' that documented how a "pace car plows into photographers' stand at Indianapolis speedway." Tony Spina of the Detroit Free Press also made it on the jury's short-list and was put in fifth place for his photograph 'Busing.' The sixth and final recommendation offered Toichi Sakakibara of the Associated Press and his photograph 'Students on a new Course.'84 The unanimous praise of the jurors for the two photographs of the entry ranking first also convinced the Advisory Board; it did not hesitate in announcing Horst Faas and Michel Laurent of the Associated Press as winners of the Pulitzer Prize in the spot news photography category for their picture series, 'Death in Dacca,'85 thus honoring Horst Faas for the second time with the coveted award after his first win seven years earlier.8^ The report of the spot news photography jury of 1973 does not contain more than sparse information about how and why the jurors selected the finalists presented to the Advisory Board. It was merely said, concerning the five recommendations: 1. Terror of War,' by Huynh Cong Ut "was the clear choice of the committee; it is an overpowering picture of the agony of war." 2. 'Wallace Shooting,' by Laurens Pierce; "the CBS cameraman's pictures" had "technical defects but the timeliness of the sequence was the overwhelming argument." 3. 'Mother and Wife in Tears over Casket,' by Henry Herr Gill. 4. 'Fallen Buddy,' by Koichiro Morita. 5. 'Driver Pulled to Safety' and 'Eerie Scene of Beach Murder,' by Douglas C. Andrews.87 The Advisory Board consented to the jury's choice and announced Huynh Cong Ut of the Associated Press as winner for his photograph The Terror of War,' depicting children in flight from a napalm bombing in Vietnam.88 The jurors of 1974 only gave the names of the photographers and the media they worked for, without stating the depicted motifs, and that is why the jury's short-list imparted merely the following information: 1. Edmund Jarecki of the Chicago Daily News; 2. Joseph Dennehy of the Boston Globe; 3. Daniel J. Sheehan of the Boston 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 4, 1971, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 46. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 9, 1972, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 46. Cf. ibid., p. 45. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 8, 1973, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 46.

210 CHILDREN AFTER NAPALM BOMB ATTACK by Huynh Cong Ut

Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography, 1973 Globe; 4. Ron Frehm of the Associated Press; 5. Anthony K. Roberts of the Associated Press, as well as 6. Robert L. Coon of the Detroit Afevvi.89 But the jury's favorite did not find favor with the Advisory Board, which selected instead the person ranking fifth in this group of photographers, Anthony K. Roberts of the Associated Press, for his picture series 'Fatal Hollywood Drama' in which an alleged kidnapper was killed.90 In the spot news photography category of 1975 the jury recommended, as can be read, "four excellent photographs covering widely different subjects. Each photograph received such strong support that we refrained from ranking: No. 812 - Photographed by Gerald H. Gay of the Seattle Times. It was an arresting photographic account of four exhausted firemen seen with graphic force and eloquent dramatic sense. No. 819 - Photographed by an anonymous photographer and submitted by the New York Times. It is a significant historical record of a moment of crisis in the life of a nation... No. 897 A Photographed by Walter L. Kleine of the Dayton Journal Herald. This photograph 89 Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 7,1974, p. 1. 90 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 46.

211

graphically evokes the fear of a community attempting to flee the destructive force of a tornado. The photographer showed remarkable control and courage. No. 883 B - Photographed by Charles Harrity of the Associated Press. This photograph shows a new President of the United States at the beginning of his tenure in an unusual, everyday setting familiar to most Americans. It has excellent and total composition."91 The Advisory Board decided in favor of the photographer on top of the list. Thus the Pulitzer Spot News Photography award was given to Gerald H. Gay of the Seattle Times for his photograph of four exhausted firemen, 'Lull in the Battle.'92 In 1976 the members of the jury put Stanley Forman of the Boston Herald American in first place as "a clear choice of the committee," while giving second place to the photo staff of the Courier-Journal and The Louisville Times. Ray Corey of the Kansas City Times was ranked third.93 The jurors had certain problems, however, with the entry on the second spot of the list, because the pictures in question originally had been submitted for the feature category. Nevertheless, they ended up for consideration in the spot news section, "since the photos essentially reported on a news event," namely "the Louisville busing situation." The jury also had difficulties with the fact that this entry represented "a staffs year-long efforts" and did not show only the output of one single photographer.94 Yet the Advisory Board was convinced that the photographic achievement of the person ranking first was that year's most outstanding effort and awarded the Pulitzer Prize to Stanley Forman of the Boston Herald American "for his sequence of photographs of a fire in Boston" in the year before.95 The report of the spot news photography jury of 1977 once again contained more encompassing explanations as to why and how the respective finalists had been chosen. "Our first selection," it can be inferred from the document, "was two photographs by James Parcell of the Washington Post. The pictures show the near tragedy - a mother hoping to save her children, one already unconscious, from an apartment house fire... The combination of fear, heroics and ultimate happiness made this picture pair our first choice. Second place went to Neal Ulevich of the Associated Press for his Thailand photographs in October of 1976. The pictures brought home again the instability of Southeast Asia at a time when many were still trying to forget. The pictures showed the violence of a people enflamed and raging at their fellow man... Our third choice," the report says further on, "was of photographer Stanley Forman's 'The Soiling of Old Glory' for the Boston Herald American. This picture seemed to sum up the differences in the continuing desegregation story in Boston... It was a photo that in one click of the shutter said much about Boston, much about America."96 This time the Advisory Board was not completely convinced and reached a compromise in the end that split the honor between two submissions and gave the spot photography award to both Neal H. Ulevich of the Associated Press for a series of photographs of disorder and brutality in the streets of Bangkok, as well as to Stanley Forman of the Boston Herald American, who had already won a Pulitzer Prize in the same category the year before, "for his photograph of a youth using the (U.S.) flag as a lance in street disorders" in Boston.97 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 7,1975, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 46. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 5, 1976, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 46. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 4, 1977, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 46.

212

The members of the jury of 1978 favored pictures of a hostage story from Indianapolis that included the following breathtaking moment: "Feeling he had been 'swindled' by a brokerage firm, a man... took one of the firm's employees... hostage, wiring his gun to the victim's neck in trigger position... Many photographers caught" that moment, "but none told more of the story in one picture than did Jim Schweiker of UPI... The photography committee's second choice reflects the other dimension of hostage taking, this one the commandeering of a Lufthansa jetliner" in October 1977, photographed by Harry Koundajian of the Associated Press.98 Although the Advisory Board held the same opinion as its jury, that the most impressive pictures had been taken during hostage situations, it nevertheless declared another photographer as winner of the Pulitzer Prize, giving the coveted award to John H. Blair of United Press International "for a photograph of an Indianapolis broker being held hostage at gunpoint."99 In 1979 the entry ranking first was that of Tom Kelly of the Pottstown Mercury: "Kelly's pictures vividly illustrate pictorial judgement under extreme pressure," the report says. "The photographer's intuitive sense captured virtually every significant moment of a highly-dangerous, quick-moving event... The pictures were taken at considerable personal risk and represent more than merely being in the right place at the right time." Frank Johnston of the Washington Post held second place, because he "captured the horror of Jonestown and gave an extra dimension to the obvious. Some of the pictures in the portfolio were the most widely used of the Jonestown event, further reflecting the quality of his photographs and his professional judgement." Third on the jury's list was a series of pictures showing 'Days of Rage in Philadelphia:' "Four photographers of the Philadelphia Inquirer," the report expounds, "combined to produce both shocking and provocative pictures of a shoot-out between police and a back-to-nature."100 The former Advisory Board, which from now on was named the Pulitzer Prize Board, confirmed the qualities of the jury's favorite entry by awarding the spot news photography Pulitzer Prize to Thomas J. Kelly III of the Pottstown Mercury from Pennsylvania for a series called Tragedy on Sanatoga Road.'101 The work of the jury in 1980 led to remarkable results as its members were most impressed by the picture taken by an anonymous photographer of United Press International which was titled 'Firing Squad in Iran.' The second position was held by a picture showing an 'Anti-Shah Demonstration in Beverly Hills,' that had been submitted by Michael Haering of the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner.102 'Crazed Veteran Holds Churchful of Hostages' was the title of the entry ranking third, shot by Robert L. Gay of the Charleston Daily Mail from West Virginia. Explaining their decision the jurors wrote that, the "anonymous's photograph of the Iranian firing squad was clearly the most outstanding submission this year, and is probably the single most important photograph... It is not only a picture of enduring and memorable quality but also has the power to shape the viewer's feeling about a compelling international crisis. The photograph reads quickly; there is no doubt in the viewer's mind what is going on."103 The members of the Pulitzer Board decided in favor of the submission by the anonymous contestant who had been identified merely "as a photographer for United Press International" because it 98 99 100 101 102 103

Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 3, 1978, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 46. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 6, 1979, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 46. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 4, 1980, p. 1. Ibid.,p.2.

213 was feared that his prize-winning entry 'Firing Squad in Iran,' taken undercover, might lead to personal reprisals.104 The jurors of 1981 also presented definite reasons why they favored the three finalists on their short-list. Larry C. Price of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram was put in first place, because he "displayed great courage, enterprise and fortitude in entering a country torn by revolution to capture in vivid terms a story of violence and turmoil." Roger A. Werth of the Longview Daily News from the State of Washington and his endeavors "to portray the full story of the Mount St. Helen's volcano" made it to the second spot on the jury's list. AP-photographer David Tenenbaum was next for "his powerful story-telling photo of the flag-draped American Olympics hockey goalie, Jim Craig."105 The Pulitzer Board had not the slightest problem in bestowing the Pulitzer spot news photography award on Larry C. Price of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram "for his photographs from Liberia."106 When appraising the entries at hand in 1982, the members of the jury also judged briefly and to the point. The report shows that Ron Edmonds of the Associated Press was the top favorite for the award because "the jury believed this... entry to be the most complete coverage of a significant event, the attempt to assassinate President Reagan." Following in second place there was Don Rypka of United Press International, who also had covered said assassination attempt, but had concentrated on the attendant circumstances instead of focusing on "the central figure of the event, the President." Third position on the list was held by the photography staff of the Fort Lauderdale News and Sun Sentinel. This entry depicted a big 'Haitian Boat Disaster' and represented an "excellent coverage of a very human drama without dwelling on the obviously distasteful aspects of the story."107 In the end, the winner was Ron Edmonds of the Associated Press "for his coverage of the Reagan assassination attempt."108 "We have taken the unusual step of submitting four entrants," the jurors of 1983 stated at the beginning of their report, adding: "This was done because of what we feel is a clear need for clarification regarding the validity of one of the four finalists. First, we will list the four in alphabetical order: James Leslie Davis, Arizona Daily Star, for his vivid depiction of... a shoot-out between members of a religious sect and law enforcement officers... Bill Foley, the Associated Press, for his memorable series of pictures showing the horror and agony of the killings in the Sabra Camp in Beirut... Daymon J. Hartley, free-lance photographer for United Press International, for his two pictures of people who were trapped in a burning Detroit high rise after a man threw a Molotov cocktail inside the building... Chester Panzer, WRC-TV, Washington, D.C., for his sequence of pictures capturing the rescue of a woman from the icy waters of the Potomac following the Air Florida crash. These pictures were shot with an electronic camera for use on television, but were moved by the wire services and used extensively in newspapers everywhere."109 "The jury agreed," it says later on in the report, "that Panzer's pictures were the strongest images on paper submitted in this category, with Foley's Beirut pictures a close second."110 This time the Pulitzer Board did not agree with the jury's choice of favorite and gave the spot news photography award to the 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 46. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 3, 1981, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 46. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 1, 1982, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 47. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 8, 1983, p. 1. Ibid.

214

photographer ranking second, Bill Foley of the Associated Press, "for his moving series of pictures of the victims and survivors of the massacre in the Sabra Camp in Beirut."1! l After sifting through all submissions in the spot news photography section of 1984, the members of the jury narrowed down the competition to the three following entries: "The Associated Press's Bill Foley captured the horror and agony of the terrorists' attack on the U.S. Marine compound in Beirut... Mohamed Rawas', Associated Press, gripping picture of a grieving Palestinian mother holding a photograph of her dead son is a powerful portrait of the continuing tragedy in the Middle East... James Lott of the Spokane (Wa.) Spokesman-Review and Chronicle captured emotion, spirit and caring in his moving photograph of a young black boy being comforted by a fireman in the aftermath of a neighborhood apartment house blaze."112 But none of these three suggestions were deemed acceptable by the Pulitzer Board. The spot news photography award finally was given to Stan Grossfeld of the Boston Globe "for his series of unusual photographs which reveal the effects of war on the people of Lebanon."113 From the mid-eighties onward the Pulitzer Board instructed all juries to draw up a list of "three nominations" without stating "preferences among its three nominations." The spot news photography jury of 1985 took these instructions to heart and named the following three contenders: Larry C. Price of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who "showed initiative in getting to where the action was;" Bruce Chambers of the Press-Telegram of Long Beach, Ca., presented the "best and clearest series," whereas a team of photographers of the Register, Santa Ana, Ca., was lauded for the "quality of Olympics coverage clearly superior to the several others taken."114 The Pulitzer Board chose the entry mentioned last and honored the photography staff of the Register with a group award, "for their exceptional coverage of the Olympic Games" in Los Angeles.115 In the following year, 1986, the five members of the jury whittled down their group of finalists for the spot news photography award to three prize-worthy entries: A team of photographers of the Dallas Morning News that had submitted a 'Portfolio of Pictures from the Mexico City Earthquake;' Carol Guzy and Michelangelo E. du Cille of the Miami Herald "brought both the horror and the strongness of the Armero earthquake disaster to their readers;" and David Walters of the Miami Herald also had provided excellent 'Mexico City Earthquake Coverage.'1 ^ Never before in the history of either photography award had there been three finalists who all depicted the same theme, in this case various forms of natural disasters. The Pulitzer Board preferred the photographic output of Carol Guzy and Michel du Cille of the Miami Herald, who worked together as a team of two and were praised "for their photographs of the devastation caused by the eruption of the Nevado del Ruiz volcano in Colombia."117 In 1987 the spot news photography jurors recommended: Bernie Boston of the Los Angeles Times, who had "a routine news assignment" and "made it special;" Michael Brown and Malcolm Denemark of Florida Today documented the explosion of a fuel tank; Kim Komenich of the 5α« Francisco Examiner offered with his entry, in the words of the jury, "excellent coverage of the fall of Ferdinand Marcos. This portfolio demon111 112 113 114 115 116 117

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 47. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 6, 1984, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 47. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 5, 1985, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 47. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 4,1986, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 47.

215 strates a wide range of hard news, pathos, drama and emotion in every frame. He captured the texture of the country, its people and its revolution."118 This last submission made the most impact on the Board, and so the Pulitzer Prize was given to Kim Komenich of the San Francisco Examiner "for his photographic coverage of the fall of Ferdinand Marcos" in the Philippines.11^ The jury of 1988 was faced with a very special problem when selecting the prizeworthy contestants in the spot news category. When its members wanted to include a picture by Paul Vathis of the Associated Press on their list of finalists that was shot when a "Pennsylvania state treasurer killed himself in front of the Pennsylvania press corps," they started a discussion on whether a photograph of a dead man lying on the floor should be considered at all. After a long debate the jury decided that it should. Carol Guzy and Brian Smith of the Miami Herald also made it on the jury's list of suggestions with photographs "from the Haitian revolutionary struggle." Scott Shaw of the Odessa American from Texas was chosen as third finalist. His photograph depicted the desperate attempts to rescue a child named Jessica McClure, "the baby America watched for almost three days... The framing of this photo was dramatic, the faces of the rescuer's intense, and Jessica's badly battered face adds poignancy to the photo."120 It was this picture that in the end won the award, and therefore the Pulitzer Prize went to Scott Shaw of the Odessa American "for his photograph of the child Jessica McClure being rescued from the well into which she had fallen."121 In 1989 the jury report contains a relatively small amount of information on the topics of the three finalists chosen. Concerning the entry by Georg Riedel of the Associated Press the report simply states: "Technically well-executed... Stunning sequence." Ben Van Hook of the Louisville Courier-Journal was attested "great dignity, perfect composition." The jurors were a little more precise with regard to the third photographer on their list, Ron Olshwanger of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "The first look by all judges was hands down unanimity for this photo - the best. An image you'll never forget. Vulnerability, strength, universality of the human spirit."122 The Pulitzer Board decided in favor of the submission mentioned last, and therefore declared Ron Olshwanger as winner "for a picture published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of a firefighter giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a child pulled from a burning building."123 In opposition to the rules laid down by the Pulitzer Board, the jury of 1990 presented four instead of three finalists in the spot news photography category. This group of four consisted of: Anonymous of the Associated Press who "captured the unbelievable emotion of the Iranian people attempting to deal with Khomeini's death." Jeff Widener of the Associated Press had documented with his entry "the defiant spirit of the Chinese resistance movement." David C. Turnley of the Detroit Free Press had managed to express in his photographs "the essence of... amazing world events" and was praised as a "tremendous example of 'seeing,' endurance, commitment to photojournalism." Also on the list was the photographic staff of the Oakland Tribune; this recommendation was accompanied by the explanation that "the photographers were able to be in exactly the

118 119 120 121 122 123

Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 4, 1987, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 47. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 1, 1988, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 47. Spot News Photography Jury Report, February 28,1989, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 47.

216

right places and were not afraid to get in close-to bring reaches... to the drama."124 What is only hinted at in this description was put more clearly when the Pulitzer Board announced that it would award the spot news photography prize to the photo staff of the Oakland Tribune "for photographs of the devastation caused by the Bay Area earthquake of October" in the previous year.125 The report of the jury of 1991 once again contained short comments on the subjects of the finalists selected. In the spot news photography section it was remarked on the pictures submitted by Greg Marinovich of the Associated Press that they showed a 'Violent Death in Soweto.' The photo staff of the Detroit Free Press also documented a story on South Africa in visual terms, in this case "The Period after Nelson Mandela's Release" after more than twenty years in prison. A photo staff of Newsday also made it on the jury's short-list due to photographs depicting the 'Drama of a Plane Crash on Long Island.'126 In the end the spot news photography award went to Greg Marinovich of the Associated Press "for a series of photographs of supporters of South Africa's African National Congress brutally murdering a man they believed to be a Zulu spy."127 In 1992, after giving due consideration to all submissions, the members of the jury drew up a list of three prize-worthy contenders for the spot news photography award, among them two entries by AP. One of them was by a team of photographers that had worked on a series about "The Plight of Albanian Refugees," whereas the other submission - by the Moscow staff of AP - had "chronicled the sudden end (of) the Soviet Union in a series of powerful, historic photos." Selected as third finalist was David C. Turnley of the Detroit Free Press with 'Photos of the Gulf War.'128 The Pulitzer Prize was given to the Moscow Associated Press staff "for photographs of the attempted coup in Russia and the subsequent collapse of the Communist regime."129 Out of all the entries of 1993 the members of the jury again selected three entries, two of which dealt with the same subject matter. Ken Geiger and William Snyder of the Dallas Morning News offered an Olympics Submission' that was "filled with emotion, elation, energy, disappointment, physical strength and split-second perfection." A photo staff of the Miami Herald had sent in a "consistently strong... portfolio" that "captured the sheer force of Hurrican Andrew." The same natural disaster was also the theme of an entry by the Palm Beach Post; that newspaper also had a photo staff document said hurricane. These pictures "showed excellent attention to every aspect of the event."130 Nevertheless, the spot news photography award went to Ken Geiger and William Snyder of the Dallas Morning News "for their dramatic photographs of the... Summer Olympics in Barcelona."131 In 1994, the decision on who should win the prestigious award once again proved to be a bit more complicated. The jury decided for these three finalists in the spot news photography section: Kevin Carter of the New York Times, who had submitted a "painful picture of predator and prey," a "shocking, yet empathetic picture that haunts you." A photo staff of the Los Angeles Times was represented by an entry on the severe devastation caused by a conflagration in Southern California, whereas Paul Richard Watson of 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131

Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 6,1990, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 47. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 5, 1991, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 47. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 4, 1992, p. 1. Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1992, p. 5. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 2, 1993, p. 1. Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 13, 1993, p. 5.

217

the New York Times had taken a "most powerful image out of Somalia."132 The award finally was given to Paul Richard Watson although this photographer was assigned to another newspaper by the Pulitzer Board, because the honor was bestowed on "Paul Watson of the Toronto Star for his photograph, published in many American newspapers, of a U.S. soldier's body being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by a mob of jeering Somalis."133 There were absolutely no complications when the jurors of 1995 picked their recommendations for best spot news photography: Denis Farrell of the Associated Press documented the first free elections in South Africa after the end of Apartheid. The photographs of Carol Guzy of the Washington Post showed the 'Horror of a Broken Society in Chaos' and were taken in Haiti. David Leeson of the Dallas Morning News was "praised and honored for helping lead" a Texas family to safety, as he himself had contributed to the rescue of this family from a flooded river, capturing every step of the rescue with his camera.134 The Board favored the work of Carol Guzy of the Washington Post, who was announced as winner of the Pulitzer Prize "for her series of photographs illustrating the crisis in Haiti and its aftermath."135 The jury report of 1996 must be counted as a peculiarity in the history of the spot news photography category. The reason behind this was that all three recommendations by the jurors were submissions by the Associated Press. On top of the list was APphotographer Jerome Delay, whose photographs of Israel and Bosnia had to be considered "incredibly strong image(s)" according to the jury. Another photographer of the Associated Press, Charles Porter IV, was praised for his "haunting photos of the aftermath of the terrorist bombing of Oklahoma City's federal building." Third on the jury's list was an AP photo staff that impressed the jurors with photographs depicting "the horror of war through the faces of the people of war-torn Chechnya."136 The Pulitzer Board voted in favor of the second name on the list, thus honoring Charles Porter IV of the Associated Press for his pictures "showing a one-year-old victim handed to and then cradled by a local fireman" after the Oklahoma City bombing.137 In 1997, the discussions of the jurors led to the following three finalists: Corinne Dufka of Reuters was represented by a photograph depicting a 'Soldier Executing a Prisoner on the Streets of Monrovia.' An entry by Annie Wells of the Press Democrat from Santa Rosa, California, was described by the jury as a "picture of a daring rescue from rainswollen flood waters... It is... of high life-and-death drama." The third name on the jury's list of finalists was Alexander Zemlianichenko of the Associated Press, who had captured the Russian President Boris Yeltsin "standing on a stage in Rostov with rock musicians and dancers."138 The Board picked one of the two female contestants and declared Annie Wells of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat winner of the Pulitzer Prize "for her dramatic photograph of a local firefighter rescuing a teenager from raging flood waters."139 The jury of 1998 again had no difficulties to reach a consent about the three finalists in the spot news photography section. Ranking their suggestions alphabetically, the jurors offered the following contestants: Jean-Marc Bouju of the Associated Press, who 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139

Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 1,1994, p. 1. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1994, p. 5. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 7, 1995, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 18, 1995, p. 6. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 5, 1996, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 9, 1996, p. 6. Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 5, 1997, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1997, p. 5.

218 made a "chilling sequence of seven photos showing an on-the-spot execution of a man in a Kinshasa Alley." The Grand Forks Herald photo staff was deemed prize-worthy for its impressive photographs of 'The Great Flood of 1997' in North Dakota. The last name on the list was that of Martha Rial of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, because she "documents how peoples from Rwanda and Burundi live, and what they must overcome in the process of building new lives."140 The Pulitzer Board had no doubts that the award should go to Martha Rial of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette "for her life-affirming portraits of survivors of the conflicts in Rwanda and Burundi."141 The three finalists of the 1999 Spot News Photography jury report were: 'Acts of Terrorism,' shot by an AP Staff and dealing with embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. "The pictures show, in absolute terms, how the power of terrorism renders masses of innocent people powerless," the report explained. A Register Guard staff from Springfield, Or., was also on the short list with a series about "School Shooting: The photographs carry us through the community struggle to terms with the loss of life and the feeling of security," the jurors explained their decision. Michael Stocker of the SunSentinel was third on the list. He had photographed the Hurricane Mitch Disaster.142 The Pulitzer Prize went to the AP Staff "for its portfolio of images following the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that illustrates both the horror and the humanity trigged by the event."143 In 2000 the former Spot News Photography award category changed its name and now was called "Breaking News Photography." A Seattle Times photo staff was named first on the jury list with the 'World Trade Organization protest folio.1 Elizabeth L. Atkins of the San Francisco Examiner was mentioned second. She had taken outstanding photos about 'U.S. World Cup soccer star Brandi Chastain.' A photo staff of the Rocky Mountain News of Denver was represented on the jury report with 'Columbine High School shooting portfolio.' The photography staff of the paper, according to the jurors, "produced an outstanding array of images showing death, rescue, heroism, suffering, grief, healing and spirituality."144 This entry impressed the board members most, and so the prize went to the Rocky Mountain News photo staff "for its powerful collection of emotional images taken after the student shootings at Columbine High School."145

10.3

Feature Photography Award

When this new award category was established in 1968 it was defined as follows: "For an outstanding example of feature photography in black and white or color, which may consist of a photograph or photographs, a sequence or an album."14** After the jurors of that year had done their selecting process in this category their short-list contained the following exhibits: 1. 'Dreams of Better Times,' by Toshio Sakai of United Press International; 2. 'Losers, Weepers,' by Patrick Callahan of Graphic Newspapers; 3. A portfolio of 'Non-cliche' pictures, by Robert G. Lynn of the Cincinnati Enquirer.^1 In the end the 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147

Spot News Photography Jury Report, March 8, 1998, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 14, 1998, p. 5. Spot News Photography Jury, March 3, 1999, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 83r annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1999, p. 5. Breaking News Photograpy Jury Report, March 1, 2000, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 10,2000, p. 5. Quoted from the Entry Form of the 1968 Pulitzer Prizes. Feature Photography Jury Report, undated (March 1968), p. 1.

219 photographer ranking first, Toshio Sakai of United Press International, emerged as winner for his Vietnam War combat photograph 'Dreams of Better Times.'148 In the feature section of 1969 the jurors regarded 'Locked Out,' by Frank Johnston of United Press International as the most impressive submission, thus ranking it first. "This is a feature picture of a news event," the members of the jury pointed out, "it tells the story of a significant series of developments in American life... in a single picture." The second place on the jury's short-list was given to "'Mourning,' a series of photos of the funeral of Robert F. Kennedy, by Ulrike Welsch of the Boston Herald Traveler. These photos have a salon quality which capture the mood of a news event rather than merely recording it..." Ranking third was "'Biafra' - a series of portraits of starving Biafrans, by Henry Herr Gill of the Chicago Daily News..." followed by '"Pfc. Gibson Comes Home,' a series of pictures, by John Fetterman of the Louisville Courier-Journal and Times..." The fifth position was held by '"An Unchained Spirit,' by Roy Miller of United Press International."^^ But the Advisory Board did not accept any of these propositions and voted instead for a picture that ranked fourth on the jury's short-list in the spot news photo category, thus awarding the prize to Moneta Sleet Jr. of Ebony magazine, "for his photograph of Martin Luther King jr.'s widow and child, taken at Dr. King's funeral."150 The jurors of 1970 presented only four finalists. The top spot on the jury's list was given to 'Migration to Misery,' by Dallas Kinney of the Palm Beach Post. "This photographer," according to the jurors, "captured with extraordinary sensitivity the lives of Florida migrant laborers, as reflected in their faces and in their work." James Atherton of United Press International reached second place for a picture showing President Nixon and Premier Meir, among others. The jurors also took a liking to the color photograph 'Basketball,' by Duane Hall of the Chicago Sun-Times, and therefore it could be found on third place of the list. As its fourth recommendation the jury offered 'Multiple Choice,' by Lynn Spence of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, praised as "a rare photographic catch in sports."151 In an additional "special report" the jury referred to a problem it had encountered: The astronaut Neil Armstrong had submitted several pictures of 'Man's First Visit to the Moon's Surface.' Because the award had never been given to photographers working for the military, neither during World War II nor during the Korean or the Vietnam War, in this case, too, an important argument to reject Armstrong's entry was the fact that it in the end also was a "product of a government endeavor" and not a photo-journalistic achievement.152 The Advisory Board agreed and bestowed the feature photography award on the jury's favorite, Dallas Kinney of the Palm Beach Post, for his portfolio of pictures of Florida migrant workers, entitled 'Migration to Misery.'153 In 1971 the jurors' comments on the three finalists in the feature photography section were even briefer, as the report did not give either the names of the photographers or the medium they worked for. It contained merely those ordinal numbers which the Pulitzer Prize office uses to mark all arriving entries. The short-list thus only imparted the following rudimentary information: The jury "unanimously recommends, without stating a preference, entries No. 910 and No. 928... Both entries reflect consistent technical excellence, sensitivity and compassion... The photo feature on the... Schools for the Retarded 148 149 150 151 152 153

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 47. Feature Photography Jury Report, undated (March 1969), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 47. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 5, 1970, pp. 1 f. Special Report to the Advisory Committee, New York, March 5, 1970, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 47.

220 is an excellent example of coverage of a universal, but nevertheless local problem. In entry 928 the photographs capture big and little human experiences under the stress of war... The committee's third choice is entry No. 946..,"154 The award for best feature photography in the end was given to Jack Dykinga of the Chicago Sun-Times "for his dramatic and sensitive photographs at the Lincoln and Dixon State Schools for the Retarded in Illinois,"155 obviously referring to "entry 910." After sifting through the entries of 1972 the jurors had quite a few difficulties in agreeing on a clear favorite for that award, and this in turn led to a compromise in the end. Said compromise consisted of declaring a "first and second place tie," without deciding in favor of or against one of the two photographers in question. The jury report gave the finalists in an alphabetical ranking by name as follows: Eddie Adams of the Associated Press was represented by his three pictures 'Marines Still Lean and Mean,' 'Pablo Casals Will Never Retire' as well as 'Violence... Banishes Christmas in Belfast.' The second contender on the list was Dave Kennedy of United Press International. His 'Vietnam War Pictures' as well as motifs of the 'Ali-Frazier Fight' were regarded by the jury as "a work of art." Pictures taken by Erwin Gebhard of the Milwaukee Journal with the collective title 'Leukemia is Part of Our Life Now' were put in third place. Ovie Carter of the Chicago Tribune was given fourth position for his photograph 'Ghetto Birth,' whereas John White of the Chicago Daily News ranked fifth for a picture with the title The Blitz of Woodlawn.'156 The Advisory Board was most impressed by the work of Dave Kennerly of United Press International and therefore made him winner of the Pulitzer Prize "for his dramatic photographs of the Vietnam War" during the previous year.1" In the feature photography category of 1973 the remarks about the topics and motifs of the favored entries were brief. With regard to the works ranking first the jury report did not even state a theme, only pleading for a "joint award" for Don Robinson and J. Walter Green. Although both photographers obviously worked for different news media, they had submitted "almost identical shots. Both were in position, both had the idea, and there was only split-second timing between execution." A picture with the title 'Frog Jumping,' by Walter Zeboski, "was our second choice on account of the photographer's ability to capture the spontaneity of the 'coach1 urging her entrant on to victory." The jury had put in third place photographs by Brian Lanker called 'Childbirth.' Fourth on its list was a 'Crop Duster' series, by Ricardo Ferro, and as fifth and final suggestion the jurors offered 'Indian Portfolio' by Max Winter.158 The Advisory Board was most impressed by the achievement of Brian Lanker of the Topeka Capital-Journal, thus voting that the award should go to him for his sequence on childbirth, as exemplified by his photographs 'Moment of Life.'159 Concerning the feature photography section of 1974, the jury report mentions the topic of the finalists' entries, so that the Advisory Board received a few more details for this award category. The jury's short-list read as follows: 1. 'Cat Woman,1 by Don Bierman of the Chicago Daily News; 2. 'Man With Bottle,' by John H. White of the Chicago Daily News; 3. Associated Press Package, including Slava Veder's picture; 4. Milwaukee 154 155 156 157 158 159

Feature Photography Jury Report, March 4, 1971, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 47. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 9, 1972, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 48. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 8, 1973, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit, p. 48.

221 RETURN OF AN U. S. POW FROM NORTH VIETNAM by Slava Veder

Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography, 1974 Journal Package, by Erwin W. Gebhard; 5. 'Wounded Knee Altar,' by Max Winter of the Dubuque Telegraph Herald; 6. 'Ballerina,' by Arthur Ellis of the Washington Post.160 Once again the Advisory Board did not heed the advice of the jury, because it chose the photographer ranking third, Slava Veder of the Associated Press, "for his picture of the return of an American prisoner of war from captivity in North Vietnam."1**1 The jurors of 1975 had a clear favorite for the feature photography award, stating in its report: "No. 958 - Photographed by Matthew Lewis of the Washington Post: The jury was unanimously enthusiastic about the consistently high achievement of this photographer's work, which is characterized by photographic excellence, remarkable versatility, and high intelligence. The work has also been exceptionally well served by its display in the newspaper." After this commendation the report continues, "the jury also felt that other submissions of very high quality include No. 8015 - Photographed by Earl Seubert of the Minneapolis Tribune: A woman gleaning rice from the dirt of an unloading area in 160 Feature Photography Jury Report, March 7, 1974, p. 1. 161 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 48.

222 Cambodia. No. 931 - Photographed by Larry Spitzer of the Louisville Courier-Journal and Times: The aftermath of a tornado graphically shown by the reactions of victims. No. 923 - Photographed by Ovie Carter of the Chicago Tribune: For overall excellence in the presentation of hunger in Africa and India."162 Due to the unanimous praise from all members of the jury for their absolute favorite, the Advisory Board did not hesitate to support their reasoning and bestowed the Pulitzer feature photography award on Matthew Lewis of the Washington Post "for his photographs in color and black and white,"163 all of which depicted various aspects of "the Washington life-style."164 In 1976 the jury drew up a short-list of three propositions in the feature category, suggesting: 1. Brian Lanker of the Eugene Register-Guard; 2. Gerald H. Gay of the Seattle Times; 3. Michael O'Brien of the Miami News. It also recommended Robert Modersohn of the Des Moines Register & Tribune for an "honorable mention."165 The Advisory Board did not follow any of these proposals, but rather put the entry ranking second in the spot news category back into the feature category and made it a Pulitzer Prize-winner there. This is how the feature photography award went to the Courier-Journal and The Louisville Times photographic staff "for a comprehensive pictorial report on busing in Louisville's schools."166 The members of the 1977 jury discussed in detail their criteria for selection in the feature photography category: "Robin Hood, a photographer for the Chattanooga NewsFree Press," the report says, "easily captured the jury's first place votes with his picture of a legless Vietnam veteran hugging an infant at an Armed Forces Day parade. The pomp and ceremony was on the street marching by but the emotion and feeling of a man who had given more than most captured the essence of the day... Second place went to Ricardo J. Ferro, photographer from the St. Petersburg Times, for his portfolio of faces of the elderly... Sometimes there is desolation, sometimes an all-encompassing aloneness. In others there is the vitality of old bones and muscles at play. But most of all, there is an affection and a feeling for the elderly that the camera somehow magnifies. Third place went to Albert Coya, a photographer for the Miami Herald, for his picture 'Blind Kids See Lincoln.1 ... The picture showed blind youngsters on a trip to Washington reaching up to touch, to stroke, to feel the face of Abraham Lincoln (at the Lincoln Memorial). The composition was handsome. The emotion the picture evoked caught the eye of every juror."167 In an additional paragraph the jurors made suggestions for the coming years, namely to limit the number of pictures to a maximum of ten photographs per entry.168 The Advisory Board voted for the contender ranking first, Robin Hood of the Chattanooga News-Free Press, "for his photograph of a disabled veteran and his child at an Armed Forces Day parade."169 In the feature photography category the short-list of 1978 comprised three finalists, namely 1. the AP staff member J. Ross Baughman "for his vivid pictorial description of one of the year's major news stories, the... guerilla war in Rhodesia... Second choice," the report continues, "went to John H. White of the Chicago Daily News for his dramatic sequence entitled Taking Jesus to Jail.' The sequence was the work of an obviously 162 163 164 165 166 167

Feature Photography Jury Report, March 7, 1975, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op, cit., p. 48. Sheryle and John Leekley, Moments - The Pulitzer Prize Photographs, New York 1982, p. 100. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 5, 1976, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit,, p. 48. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 4,1977, p. 1.

168 Ibid., p. 2. 169 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 48.

223 talented photographer at work... Third choice... went to Michael O'Brien for his sensitive and extensive series on the Culmer ghetto in Miami."170 Once again the Advisory Board accepted the suggestion on top of the list, and so the award went to J. Ross Baughman of the Associated Press "for three photographs from guerilla areas in Rhodesia."171 For the feature photography category of 1979, the jurors put in first place the photo staff of a New England newspaper. "The Boston Herald American," it can be read in the report, "displayed resourceful use of photography and team effort in producing detailed and imaginative coverage of a disastrous storm. The photographers were faced with telling the story of the worst blizzard in the history of New England. They did so with wide ranging, dramatic photographs that accentuated the human element." Ranking second was Gordon N. Converse of the Christian Science Monitor, who "went to China to see if he could photograph the 'real China' as reflected by its people. His pictures are sensitive and perceptive selections of subjects that depict a warm, friendly and busy people. The quality of his photographs and his photographic techniques enhance the presentation." Third on the jury's short-list were two photographers of the Columbia Daily Tribune of Missouri who had submitted an entry with the title 'Youth Imprisoned.' "Photographers Bill Marr and Nick Kelsh," the jurors stated, "not only capture the hopeless and lost feeling of reformatory inmates but also project the inadequacy of government and society in trying to deal with the problems of young criminals. This is a powerful showing of what it is like behind the walls of a prison."172 Despite this final praise the Pulitzer Board accepted the favorite of the jury and bestowed a group award on the staff photographers of the Boston Herald American "for photographic coverage of the blizzard" in the previous When discussing the ranking of the chosen finalists of 1980, the jurors even went so far as to make explicit exactly how they had voted in each of the three cases. In their report it says among other things: that they "were unanimous in their selection of Erwin H. Hagler's series on the Western Cowboy," published in the Dallas Times Herald. "The jurors felt that Hagler revealed in pictures the passing of an American institution, and revealed the story with great industry and sensitivity. Further, the jurors agreed that the photographs are representative of the highest technical and compositional skills of American photo-journalism. Three of the five jurors," the report goes on, "recommended John J. Sunderland's 'Dying in a Hospice' entry" from the Denver Post "as the second choice of the jury. 'Hospice' was commended by jurors for its quiet and sensitive presentation of an emerging area of health care not familiar to a large segment of the population... Two of the five jurors," it can be read in the report about the third finalist, "recommended David A. Kryszak's entry 'Children in Cambodia,'" published in the Detroit Afewi.174 As a result of the unanimous praise heaped on the person on top of the list the Pulitzer Board saw no reason to overrule the jury's proposal and honored Erwin H. Hagler of the Dallas Times Herald with a Pulitzer Prize "for a series on the Western Cowboy."175 First on the short- list of the 1981 finalists for the feature photography category was Taro Yamasaki of the Detroit Free Press for "displaying great courage, coupled with a 170 171 172 173 174 175

Feature Photography Jury Report, March 3,1978, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 48. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 6, 1979, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 48. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 4,1980, p. 2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 48.

224 rare sensitivity" when documenting "the terror and emptiness of a huge correction institution." Paul Beaver of the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, who was second among the three favorites, provided "an excellent documentary and pictorial essay on the cotton culture of the Delta region in Mississippi." The finalist ranking third, Michael C. Hayman of the Flint Journal in Michigan, had submitted dramatic profiles of "the people who are most touched by (the) economy in his region - the auto workers."176 The Board was convinced by the merits of the entry on top of the jury's list in this category and therefore the prize went to Taro M. Yamasaki of the Detroit Free Press "for his photographs of Jackson (Mich.) State Prison."177 In 1982 the feature photography jury favored John H. White of the Chicago SunTimes because "the body of his work reflects a blend of humor, warmth and compassion recorded with a creative eye and technical excellence." Walter C. Stricklin of the Florida Times-Union came next on the jury's list of three because "the jury found a body of photographs which recount with drama, emotion and understanding the problems faced by a family confronting the death of one of its members." As third finalist the jury suggested Ellis Reed of the San Francisco Examiner, who "captured the harsh realities of daily life... (in a) public housing project."17** The Pulitzer Board did not raise any objections against awarding the prize to the person on top of the list, thus honoring John H. White of the Chicago Sun-Times "for consistently excellent work on a variety of subjects."179 The jurors of 1983 pointed out right at the beginning of their report that their "recommendations in this category, which includes two entrants removed from the spot news pictures classification and placed in features competition are: James Bruce Dickman, Dallas Times Herald, for his picture story... (about) the aftermath of a series of bloody battles" in El Salvador. "Dickman made three trips to El Salvador and during that time recorded the despair and pain and agony of those innocent victims who must make a life for themselves amid the ruins." The second name of the list was that of Barron Ludlum, Dallas Times Herald, "for his picture story of the courageous battle of an eight-year-old to survive a congenital liver malfunction." The third name on the list was that of John H. White of the Chicago Sun-Times, who had won the preceding year in the same category, "for his portfolio of pictures which cover the tapestry of life in Chicago."180 The committee summed up its discussions by emphasizing that "the jury was unanimous in its decision selecting Dickman's work as the finest of these three."181 The jurors' vote also found favor with the Board, so that the feature photography award was given to James B. Dickman of the Dallas Times Herald "for his telling photographs of life and death in El Salvador."182 In 1984 there were two potential finalists left for that award. "A moving series of 15 color photographs by David Woo of the Dallas Morning News startlingly depicting children as the victims of war," it can be read in the feature photography report, "was the jury's first choice by a 4-to-l vote... The jury's second choice was an entry of work by Anthony Suau of the Denver Post. These pictures tell a tragic story of starvation in 176 177 178 179 180 181 182

Feature Photography Jury Report, March 3, 1981, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 48. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 2,1982, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 48. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 8, 1983, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 48.

225 Ethiopia in vivid terms."183 The Board decided to bestow the Pulitzer Prize for feature photography on Anthony Suau of the Denver Post "for a series of photographs which depict the tragic effects of starvation in Ethiopia and for a single photograph of a woman at her husband's gravesite on Memorial Day."184 In the feature photography section the jurors of 1985 selected these three finalists: Stan Grossfeld of the Boston Globe, who had submitted two series on 'Ethiopia' and 'Illegal Aliens,1 and Stormi Groener of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune was represented by 'Pictures of dying Girl.1 Sebastian Salgado Jr. of Magnum Photos also made it to the jury's list of finalists, although the report does not contain any specifics about his work.185 The Board gave the Pulitzer Prize in this category in equal parts to Stan Grossfeld of the Boston Globe "for his series of photographs of the famine in Ethiopia and for his pictures of illegal aliens on the Mexican Border," as well as to Larry C. Price of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who initially had been among the finalists for the spot news photography award, "for his series of photographs from Angola and El Salvador depicting their war-torn inhabitants."186 In 1986 the feature photography jury's list of finalists comprised: Tom Gralish of the Philadelphia Inquirer, dealing with the 'Philadelphia Homeless;' David J. Leeson of the Dallas Morning News, who had worked on 'Civil Strife in South Africa;' and Michael S. Wirtz of the Dallas Times Herald "documented the decline and despair of American farmers."187 The Board did not hesitate to announce Tom Gralish of the Philadelphia Inquirer winner of the Pulitzer Prize "for his series of photographs of Philadelphia's homeless."188 One of the finalists in 1987 was Cheryl Nuss of the San Jose Mercury with an entry that "chronicled the diversity of AIDS victims and the emotional toll exacted by the disease on the victims themselves and those around them." David C. Peterson of the Des Moines Register was cited by the jury for his "excellent portrayal of the human drama of the farm tragedy." In the case of April Saul-Zerby of the Philadelphia Inquirer the jury report does not give a specific theme but emphasizes instead that "her ability to visually compose the information within the photograph was unsurpassed."189 In the end the Pulitzer Board made David C. Peterson of the Des Moines Register winner of the feature photography award "for his photographs depicting the shattered dreams of American farmers."190 In the feature photography section of 1988 George Widman of the Associated Press was among the three recommendations for his pictures on "the problems of the nation's homeless." Barbara J. Reis of USA Today had submitted an entry with photographs "taken on Veteran's Day at the Wall in Washington." And Michel du Cille of the Miami Herald had captured in detail various aspects of drug addiction.191 This explosive topic was also deemed to be most outstanding by the Board, and thus Michel du Cille of the Miami Herald was honored with his second Pulitzer Prize, this time "for photographs

183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191

Feature Photography Jury Report, March 7,1984, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. tit., p. 48. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 5, 1985, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 48. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 4, 1986, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 48. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 4, 1987, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 49. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 1, 1988, p. 1.

226 portraying the decay and subsequent rehabilitation of a housing project overrun by drug crack."192 In 1989 the feature photography jury's list of finalists consisted of three recommendations: Donna Bagby of the Dallas Times Herald, whose "entry reflects a timeless quality and the strong composition," and these are aspects that, according to the jury, should be regarded as especially relevant for feature photography. Manny Crisostomo of the Detroit Free Press, it was said, "has built, frame by frame, a moving and permanent record of a special place and time." Frederic Larson of the San Francisco Chronicle had sent in pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that called to mind "the awfulness of the tragedy."193 The Board chose Manny Crisostomo of the Detroit Free Press and gave him the Pulitzer Prize "for his series of photographs depicting student life at Southwestern High School in Detroit."194 Among the jury's three candidates in the feature photography section of 1990 there were first of all pictures by photographers of the Anchorage Daily News, followed by those of staff members of the Boston Globe as well as an entry by a photographer working for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. All three finalists were cited for their amazing competence,195 and yet the Board chose none of the above. Instead it declared David C. Turnley of the Detroit Free Press, mentioned in the jury report for the spot news photography category, as winner of the feature photography award "for photographs of the political uprisings in China and Eastern Europe."196 In 1991 the three contestants in the feature photography category were: William Snyder of the Dallas Morning News with pictures capturing 'The Fall of the Communist Dictator in Romania.' The entry of Ronald Costes of the Philadelphia Inquirer depicted Ά 60-Year-Old Returning to High School,' and Jay Mather of the Sacramento Bee had submitted "beautiful pictures of (the) Yosemite National Park."197 William Snyder of the Dallas Morning News received the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding feature photography "for his photographs of ill and orphaned children living in subhuman conditions in Romania."198 The jurors of 1992 presented the following three finalists: John Kaplan of the Monterey Herald who "vividly tells the story of seven individuals across the nation in an extraordinary series." Paul Kuroda of the Orange County Register had sent in an entry about "illegal immigration across the U.S.-Mexican Border," whereas Charles W. (Bill) Snead of the Washington Post was chosen for his 'Portfolio from the Kurdish refugee camps.'199 The Pulitzer Board decided in favor of John Kaplan of the Monterey Herald, although in its official announcement of the winner it did not cite the newspaper itself, but rather the newspaper group to which the Monterey Herald belonged. Thus when the prizes were announced the official version read: "Awarded to John Kaplan of Block Newspapers, Toledo, Ohio, for his photographs depicting the diverse lifestyles of seven 21-year-olds across the United States."200

192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 49. Feature Photography Jury Report, February 28, 1989, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 49. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 6,1990, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 49. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 5,1991, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 49. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 4, 1992, p. 1. Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 5.

227 A doubling of subject matter could be found in the 1993 feature photography category, because one topic was dealt with twice. Whereas an Associated Press staff "covered the hell out of the 1992 presidential campaign," a second AP photo team became one of the favorites for "outstanding, sustained coverage of Somalia's desperate plight." Finally, the jury report praised Yunghi Kim of the Boston Globe, because she had "artfully woven together the elements of famine, war and American intervention that characterized the plight of Somalia in 1992."201 The Pulitzer Board voted for the entry that was mentioned first on the jury's list, and so the photo team of AP received the Pulitzer Prize "for its portfolio of images drawn from the 1992 presidential campaign."202 In the feature photography group of 1994 Stan Grossfeld of the Boston Globe was cited as one of the contestants due to his ecologic series of pictures on The Exhausted Earth.' April Saul of the Philadelphia Inquirer was chosen because of her series of photographs called 'American Dreamers.1 An Associated Press staff had submitted a series on the 'Conflict in the Middle East.'20·^ But, in the end, none of the three finalists made it, as the award went to Kevin Carter, who was on the short-list in the spot news photography category, winning the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding feature photography "for a picture, first published in the New York Times, of a starving Sudanese girl who collapsed on her way to a feeding center while a vulture waited nearby."204 The first prize-worthy entry on the jury's short-list of 1995 was a series of photographs taken by several staff members of the Associated Press. With regard to this submission the jury stated: "We were struck by the consistent excellence... (of) these photographs... of the men, women and children of subsaharan Africa." Staff photographers of the Long Beach Press-Telegram had sent in pictures "of the everyday lives of the community's residents" living in their hometown, that were so excellent that they also were included on the jury's list of finalists. The third proposal on that list was Carl Bower of the Newhouse News Service, selected for his photographs of a woman and her 'Battle with breast cancer.'205 The members of the Board decided to give the feature photography Pulitzer Prize to the Associated Press staff "for its portfolio of photographs chronicling the horror and devastation in Rwanda."206 In 1996 one of the three finalists was Stan Grossfeld of the Boston Globe, He had sent in "photos documenting kids having kids." David Turnley of the Detroit Free Press and his photographs of "The Civil War in Bosnia' also made it onto the jury's short-list. Furthermore, the jurors were completely overwhelmed by the work of Stephanie Welsh of the Newhouse News Service, because, as they put it, "the raw power of this disturbing yet provocative set of photographs is almost indescribable."207 What exactly was meant by this description is made more explicit by the official announcement of the winning entry that explained why the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding feature photography was given to Stephanie Welsh of the Newhouse News Service, as she received the award "for her shocking sequence of photos... of a female circumcision rite in Kenya."208 For the feature photography award of 1997 the jury suggested: Jeffrey L. Brown of the Joliet Herald News with pictures of "the Underground Travels of a Mexican Immigrant 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208

Feature Photography Jury Report, March 2, 1993, p. 1. Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. at., p. 5. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 1, 1994, p. 1. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 5. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 7, 1995, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 6. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 5, 1996, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 6.

228 DANCING RUSSIAN PRESIDENT BORIS YELTSIN by Alexander Zemlianichenko

Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography, 1997 to the United States." Jon Krai of the Miami Herald had given his series the title 'Hell on Earth' as it documented the conditions of prisons in Venezuela. Another series of photographs showing 'An Individual's Fight against Cancer' by Michele McDonald of the Boston Globe was the third and final proposition in the feature photography category.20^ But the Pulitzer Board accepted none of the above and chose one of the finalists in the spot news photography category instead, thus bestowing the Pulitzer Prize on Alexander Zemlianichenko of the Associated Press, "for his photograph of Russian President Boris Yeltsin dancing at a rock concert during his campaign for re-election."210 Judging the entries in 1998, the members of the jury favored pictures of completely different subject matters: Allan Detrich of the Block Newspaper Alliance showed in his work "the tragic consequences of disintegrating families and broken homes." Joseph Stefanchik of the Dallas Morning News on the other hand dealt with "the human toll taken by land mines" in Angola. And Clarence Williams of the Los Angeles Times had submitted "images of drug addiction;" he received praise because, as the jurors emphasized, his "documentary photographs go beyond the stereotype of yet another scarred junkie shoot209 Feature Photography Jury Report, March 5,1997, pp. 1 ff. 210 Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 6.

229

ing up."211 The Board was of the same opinion and announced that Clarence Williams of the Los Angeles Times would be honored with the Pulitzer Prize for feature photography "for his powerful images documenting the plight of young children with parents addicted to alcohol and drugs."212 In 1999 Bill Greene of the Boston Globe was mentioned first on the jury's short-list. His entry was called "The Freedom Rider.' An AP Staff was also represented on the jury report with an exhibit called 'Presidency in Peril,' dealing with the impeachment debate of President Bill Clinton. Daniel A. Anderson of the Orange County Register was mentioned on the jury's list for his photos about 'Motel Children.'213 The board decided in favor of the AP Staff entry containing a "striking collection of photographs of the key players and events stemming from President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky and the ensuing impeachment hearings."214 The jury report of 2000 listed first the images of three staff photographers of the Washington Post dealing with the ethnic cleansing campaign in former Yugoslavia. Nuri Vallbona and Candice Barbot of the Miami Herald also were mentioned on the jury's list for their pictures of Liberty City, an area devasted by Miami race riots of the 1980's. Finally, the jurors picked out an entry by the Worcester Telegram & Gazette photo staff.215 The Pulitzer Prize was awarded to Carol Guzy, Michael Williamson and Lucian Perkins of the Washington Post "for their intimate and poignant images depicting the plight of the Kosovo refugees."21^ It was the second Pulitzer Prize for Carol Guzy, five years after winning the award in the spot news photography category. In conclusion, when looking back on the developmental history of the Pulitzer Prizes in the field of photography, it seems that in the beginning the task of each respective jury was comparatively easy, as long as there was only one prize category. But as soon as the original photography category was divided into two groups,217 things got more complicated. The reason for this was that, from time to time it turned out to be a matter of discretion as to whether or not a certain entry should be transferred into another category. But as the same jurors were responsible for both award sections in all of these years, such difficulties were usually able to be solved. Only additional objections raised by the Advisory Board later on were to lead to the transferral of entries from one category to the other.218 Concerning the topics depicted by the prize-winning photographs it is obvious that a continual development has taken place. John Hohenberg describes the most important aspects of this development as follows: "In pictorial journalism,... the racial conflict registered a powerful impact on the Pulitzer Prizes, particularly after the adoption of separate awards for news and feature photography."219 As Julius H. Klyman once stated, over the years "the photographer became a reporter in his own medium, a photo story teller, a photo essayist, a photo analyst."220 All in all, it has been summarized, the Pulitzer Prizes for outstanding photography epitomize "the pinnacle of achievement in 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220

Feature Photography Jury Report, March 8, 1998, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 5. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 3,1999, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 5. Feature Photography Jury Report, March 1,2000, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 5. Cf. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 45. Cf. Sheryle and John Leekley, Moments, op. cit., p. 6. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 302. Julius H. Klyman, Photography Awards, op. cit., pp. 28 f.

230 the field of American journalism... Perhaps more than any other single factor, we see a great deal of violence in these photographs, reflecting the violence in life around us... These photographs record the drama of life and death... and everything between. They are moments of history."221

221 Sheryle and John Leekley, Moments, op. cit., p. 6.

231 11.

PRIZES FOR TOP ARTISTIC ACHIEVEMENTS

Since Joseph Pulitzer liked arts and artists as well, there was also one of this type in the original plan of awards. It was the Pulitzer Prize for "Drama" which later on also included comedy. It took several decades before another award in the field of the performing arts was created - for "Music." Beside the two prizes for outstanding achievements in theatre and composition, a third award in the artistic field should not be overlooked: it was for "Editorial Cartoons." Although the works of this type sometimes are mainly mentioned in connection with journalism, it is no question that cartoonists are artists of a special nature, and therefore the Pulitzer Prize for cartoons belongs in this chapter.

11.1 Drama Award The original description for the Drama prize read: "For the original American play, performed in New York, which shall best represent the educational value and power of the stage in raising the standard of good morals, good taste, and good manners."1 Although, as John Hohenberg remarked, "the American theater was stagnant at the time the first Pulitzer Prizes in Drama were awarded... there was a lot of excitement on Broadway, particularly about the Ziegfeld Follies and George M. Cohan's brassy musical shows." But, he adds, "much of the standard fare was both trivial and banal. In the hinterlands, there were a few struggling stock companies and occasional road shows. What it all added up to... was distressingly little."2 Therefore, in the beginning it was rather difficult for the jurors to reach decisions that met with general acceptance.3 In view of this constellation it is hardly surprising that the first Pulitzer Prize Drama Jury, that had to judge in the spring of 1917 on the Broadway production of the previous year, had considerable problems to extract an outstanding performance. "Considering the conditions of the Pulitzer award for drama, its aims and requirements," the jurors wrote in the end in their report to the Advisory Board, "your committee is not agreed upon a recommendation."4 The Board consented to this vote, thus deciding on "no award" right away in the very first year of the drama category.5 Similarly unanimous were the three jurors in 1918, when the chairman of the jury stated in his report: "My vote emphatically is for Williams' Comedy Why Marry?"6 And another member of the jury expressed among other things the following opinion: "I have seen Why Marry? by Jesse Lynch Williams and find it an admirable piece of comedy... There are some things in the piece which I do not like but on the whole it is the best piece of drama I have seen this year."7 The third juror also voted "in favor of Why Marry?... for the award to the play produced 1 Quoted from Deforest O'Dell, The History of Journalism Education in the United States, New York 1935, p. 109. 2 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes. A History of the Awards in Books, Drama, Music, and Journalism, New York-London 1974, p. 43. 3 John L. Toohey, A History of the Pulitzer Prize Plays, New York 1967, p. VII. 4 Drama Jury Report, May 1, 1917, p. 1. 5 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes 1917-1991, New York 1991, p. 54. 6 Letter to Frank D. Fackenthal, Columbia University, March 6,1918, p. 1. 7 Letter to Frank D. Fackenthal, Columbia University, March 25,1918, p. 1.

232 in 1917."8 Faced with such extreme concordance in the jurors' judgment the Advisory Board endorsed this evaluation and gave the Pulitzer Prize for drama to Jesse Lynch Williams for the New York performance of his play Why Marry?9 Right at the beginning of their report the jury for the award of 1919 came to the crucial point by explaining to the Advisory Board: "In the judgement of your committee no play produced in New York City within the calendar year 1918 is entirely worthy the prize of the Pulitzer Bequest. Whether by reason of the turmoil of war or from some change in the temper of managers and audiences, most of the plays of the year in question are either very light entertainment or so crudely melodramatic as to be of little literary value. No play by a native author stands out commandingly and as your committee can not wholeheartedly commend any candidate, we advise that the award go over to another year."10 The Advisory Board accepted the vote of the jury and likewise decided on "no award."11 In their report the jurors recommended furthermore "that as the period of play production is during the winter months, the theatrical and not the calendar year be taken as the limit in which the competing plays shall be staged. Confusion results from splitting the theatrical season in half."12 This suggestion also was taken up by the Advisory Board.13 In spite of certain disagreements among the jurors of 1920 about who was to be the potential prize-winner, in the end it said in the report of the jury chairman: "Up to the present moment Beyond the Horizon by Eugene O'Neill has no competitor as 'the outstanding play of the season.' It is not an 'uplifting play1 in the terms of the Pulitzer Bequest but it is highly significant and I will join the other members in commending it for the prize although I am still in doubt about the author's motive. It certainly is not a mere 'show' and could not have been composed with any commercial success in mind. It is well written."14 And another member of the jury added: "The committee is almost a unit in favor of Beyond the Horizon, Eugene O'Neill's play... So far as my own judgment is concerned I can not bring myself to vote for a prize to a mere entertainment such as most of the successful plays are, and yet I can not regard O'Neill's play as 'Noble' or 'Uplifting'... Nevertheless as it is the outstanding play of the season, thus far, I will join in the award."15 As the verdict of the jury was not unanimous this resulted in extensive discussions within the Advisory Board, but in the end "the Board agreed with the Drama Jury and recommended Beyond the Horizon" by Eugene O'Neill.16 Varying views also surfaced when the members of the jury of 1921 met and put The First Year by Frank Craven on their shortlist as well as Nemesis by Augustus Thomas and Miss Lulu Bett by Zona Gale. Although one of the jurors was "disposed to vote 'No Prize,"'17 finally several compromises were reached, and soon it became evident that Miss Lulu Bett still had the best chances to win a majority: That very juror, who at first had pleaded for 'no award,' gave in and indicated that he would join the vote of the two 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Letter to Frank D. Fackenthal, Columbia University, March 29, 1918, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 54. Drama Jury Report, March 22,1919, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 54. Drama Jury Report, op. cit., p. 1. Cf. Heinz-D. Fischer/Erika J. Fischer (Ed.), The Pulitzer Prize Archive, Vol. 12: Drama/Comedy Awards 1917-1996, Munich 1998, pp. 9 f. Drama Jury Report, April 30, 1920, p. 1. Letter to Nicholas M. Butler, President of Columbia University, May 11, 1920, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 48. Letter to Frank D. Fackenthal, Columbia University, May 11,1921, p. 1.

233 other members of the jury in favor of "Lulu Bett if that will solve the difficulty."18 The chairman of the jury then declared in his final vote on behalf of the whole jury: "Lulu Bett is not a great play but it is original and interesting, and Miss Gale is a woman to whom such an honor can go with justice... Personally," the chairman of the jury remarked in adding to the report from his own point of view, "I do not feel deep enthusiasm for any of the plays... of the year. Not one has in it the element of greatness."19 Despite these concerns the Advisory Board decided to bestow the Pulitzer Prize on Zona Gale for her play Miss Lulu Bett?Q In 1922 "Eugene O'Neill once again became an active contender for the Pulitzer Prize... with a more conventional play, Anna Christie."21 Therefore, it came as no surprise that the jurors partly also were of differing opinions. One juror said that he and another jury member will "vote for Anna Christie by Eugene O'Neill. In our opinion this deserves the prize for the best play of the year, and we have no second choice; in fact we are quite strongly of the opinion that the prize should not be given to any other play." The third juror, he continued, "has not seen Anna Christie but feels sure that he would not like it and will not vote for it. He has no other play to suggest and in his opinion the prize should not be given at all; he thinks that it would be better for the interests of the drama that no prize should be given this year."22 The championship of O'Neill was upheld by both the Advisory Board and the Trustees and so Eugene O'Neill won his second award.23 There also was to be no unanimous vote of the jury in 1923, either, as can be inferred from the report to the Advisory Board: "By a two to one vote, your Committee votes to give the Pulitzer Prize to Icebound by Owen Davis."24 As Hohenberg found out, "Elmer Rice's remarkable play... The Adding Machine" was also under consideration,25 but the Advisory Board decided in favor of Icebound by Owen Davis.26 In the following year, 1924, the recommendation of the jurors was brief and concise as well with the report stating: "The Committee have decided that the Pulitzer Prize for the best current American play should go to The Show-Off by George Kelly. We think this is an extremely good and original American play."27 But before the Advisory Board could discuss the suggestion of the jury, a decent of Columbia University, although neither a member of the jury nor member of the Advisory Board, intervened and spoke out against its verdict. He "wrote privately to (Columbia University) President Butler... to protest the Drama Jury's selection of George Kelly's satirical comedy... Instead... (he) called for a prize for Hell-Bent Per Heaven, a hillbilly drama set in the Kentucky mountains, by a fellow member of the Columbia faculty, Hatcher Hughes... The Board... voted for Hell-Bent Per Heaven"^ and so Hatcher Hughes won the Pulitzer Prize for best drama. Because of the course the events had taken the previous year, the jury that went to work in 1925 had two new members. This new jury, however, did not stay complete up 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Drama Jury Report (1), May 20, 1921, p. 1. Drama Jury Report (II), May 22,1921, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 54. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Drama Jury Report, May 1, 1922, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 54. Drama Jury Report, March 31,1923, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 94 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 54. Drama Jury Report, April 3,1924, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 94 f.

234

Morosco Theatre MESSRS. LEE AND J. J. SHUBERT, OWNERS Forty-fifth Street, Weet of Broadway OLIVER MOROSCO Lessee and Manager Telephone Bryant 230

THIS THBATKK, UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, WITH EVERY SEAT OCCUPIED, CAN BE EMPTIED IN LESS THAN THREE MINUTES. LOOK AROUND NOW, CHOOSE THE NEAREST EXIT TO YOUR SEAT, AND IN CASE OF DISTURBANCE OF ANY KIND, TO AVOID THE DANGERS OF PANIC. WALK 56ElN

jesses CRIME 0IUL

CLINTON

•p/es&s ΗΔΡΤΑ

CLIKTON MACTS

OJNTfcN

RESCUES MEXICO Pulitzer Prize for Cartoon, 1996 time challenging each reader's assumptions..."526 In spite of these praises, the Board did not bestow the prize on anyone of the three mentioned, but rather selected Jim Morin of the Miami Herald as Pulitzer Prize winner.527 The jurors of 1997 did not find it easy to select three finalists from all the applications for the cartoon prize. On top of their list of names was Walt Handelsman of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, about whom the jury report said that the caricaturist "moves from the sublime to the ridiculous with powerful insight and fine technical skill. His sharp wit and emphatic heart result in a remarkably consistent portfolio of high-impact cartoons. Handelsman brings an everyday sensibility to the news... Handelsman is gifted in his ability to evoke a belly-laugh or a tear, and to hit the bull's eye day in and day out." About Chip Bok of the Akron Beacon Journal the jurors remarked that he "is funny. Very funny. In his personal, vivid style, he dramatically drives home the ironies that mark public life." And about Jeffrey MacNelly of the Chicago Tribune was just said that he "is a master. He is smart, he is funny and he is... always original. His inventiveness is breathtaking and graphically he is at the top of the heap."528 The members of the Board 526 Cartoon Jury Report, March 5,1996, pp. 1 ff. 527 Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 6. 528 Cartoon Jury Report, March 4,1997, pp. 1 ff.

301

were especially impressed by the drawings of the caricaturist Walt Handelsman, so that he received the Pulitzer Prize in the cartoon category for outstanding achievements.529 In 1998 the jurors mentioned first in their report the three-times award-winner Paul Conrad of the Los Angeles Times. As the jury expressed, "Conrad is like a member of the senior golf tour; he's been around awhile, but still hits with power and accuracy... The work is brutally honest." Another former winner of the cartoon award, Jeff MacNelly of the Chicago Tribune, was called "a master of the arranged marriage of word and image... His drawing style is layered and elegant, approaching true art." Joel Pett of the Lexington Herald-Leader, who was on the jury's shortlist already in the early nineties, was the third finalist. He was praised by the jurors as "the best of a new breed of editorial cartoonist. The style is spare and simple, but he gets a phenomenal bang for his bottle of ink."530 This time the Pulitzer Prize Board did not accept any of the three proposals. Instead, the cartoon award was bestowed on another young cartoonist. It was Stephen B. Breen of the Asbury Park Press from Neptune, N.J.531 The finalists in 1999 were led by Clay Bennett of the Christian Science Monitor. "Bennett's work needs no narrative," the jurors stated, "his cartoons are both powerful and exceedingly pleasing to the eye." David Horsey of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer was called "both a national and a local watchdog... His style can range from subtle to explosive; in every cartoon the viewer finds a richness of detail." Bob Rodgers of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, in the eyes of the jury, "took full advantage of the fertile political landscape by creating some of the most powerful, clever and appealing cartoons."532 The Board decided in favor of David Horsey of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer who received the Pulitzer Prize in the cartoon category.533 In 2000 it was Robert L. Ariail of the State from Columbia in South Carolina who received a place of the jury's list. He used "an excellent cartooning style to deliver a distinctive view on standard topics." Clay Bennett of the Christian Science Monitor, in view of the jury, "takes advantage of a unique and subtle visual style to deliver his very pointed commentaries... He provokes rather than pounds." Joel W. Pett of the Lexington Herald-Leader, third on the list of proposals, was called "a cartoonist who is consistently engaged with his community. His spare, simple style allows the reader to focus on his message."534 The Pulitzer Prize Board selected Joel W. Pett's exhibit, and so he won for the Lexington Herald-Leader from Kentucky the first Pulitzer Prize for cartoons in the new millennium.535 As a bit late descendant of the "editorial writing" award, the "editorial cartooning" prize was established in the early twenties. In the beginning the annual submissions were either too poor or did not fulfill the high quality criteria, which accompany a Pulitzer Prize. It is a sign of courage of the annual juries and the members of the Board that no fewer than five times in all these years they decided on "no award." In summary, John Hohenberg once stated that "it was in the work of the editorial cartoonists, rather than the editorial writers, that the mood of the country was more sharply recorded."536 This 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536

Columbia University, The 81 st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. at., p. 5. Cartoon Jury Report, March 3, 1998, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 5. Cartoon Jury Report, March 3, 1999, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 5. Cartoon Jury Report, March 1, 2000, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., op. cit., p. 4. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 133.

302 intention was always the ambition for the great caricaturists, and the three time prizewinner Paul Conrad once confessed that "winning the Pulitzers gave me a justification to keep doing what I've been doing but to work my damnedest to do it even better."537 "With cartoons to assist," S. L. Harrison states, "instructors can incorporate the newspaper history into foreign policy, technology and people... The editorial cartoonists Homer Davenport (New York Journal), John T. McCutcheon (Chicago Tribune) and Clifford K. Berryman (he gave the word Theodore Roosevelt's Teddy Bear, in the Washington Post) open 20th century's riotous times. Early cartoonists like Berryman..., and Jay N. 'Ding' Darling (Des Meines Register and New York Herald-Tribune) contributed relevant commentary on events for fifty years. The turbulent 1920s were dominated by Rollin Kirby, of Joseph Pulitzer's New York World; Nelson Harding of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, the only winner of back-to-back Pulitzer Prizes; Carey Orr of the Chicago Tribune..., and Vaughn Shoemaker, Chicago Daily News."5^ Since about the end of World War II, "Herbert Block (Herblock), an institution at the Washington Post for more than a half-century, provided graphic commentary that can bring to life any subject with point and pungency..."539

537 Quoted from Karen Rothmyer, Winning Pulitzers. The Stories Behind Some of the Best News Coverage of Our Time, New York 1991, p. 211. 538 S L Harrison, Cartoons as a Teaching Tool In Journalism History, in: Journalism & Mass Communication Educator (Columbia, S.C.), Vol. 53/No. 1, Spring 1998, pp. 96 ff. 539 Ibid.

303 12.

PRIZES FOR FACT-ORIENTED LITERATURE

For the non-fiction section of the award system the Pulitzer testament had mentioned two categories, one for books upon the "History of the United States," and the other one for "American Biography" which later also included autobiographical works. About fortyfive years after the establishment of those two original prize groups, a third category in this field was created by the Advisory Board, - it was called "General Non-Fiction."

12.1 American History Award The Pulitzer Prize for American History,1 as it is used to be called, in the original plan of awards simply was defined as follows: "For the best book of the year upon the history of the United States."2 Hohenberg stresses that in the early years of that award "the gentleman amateurs dominated the Pulitzer Prize selections of this group" of award, and "they blandly overlooked the underlying theme of Pulitzer's will that Americans should be honored, since it was not specifically stated in the terms of the history award."3 The first jury, acting in the spring of 1917, was of the opinion "that, for various reasons, none of the... books submitted for the prize... deserves much distinction." Nevertheless the jury unanimously recommended, "mat the prize of $ 2,000, for the best book of the year upon the history of the United States be awarded to His Excellency, J. J. Jusserand, Ambassador of France to the United States, for his book entitled With Americans of Past and Present Days, published by Charles Scribners Sons."4 The Advisory Board accepted the jury's proposal and gave the Pulitzer Prize for history to the Frenchman, J. J. Jusserand.^ In the following year, the same jury was to decide on the award of a Pulitzer Prize in the history category. At the end of April 1918, the jury unanimously proposed that James Ford Rhodes' A History of the Civil War, 1861-1865 should be awarded the prize.6 As this book, which John Hohenberg calls "a truly distinguished work,"7 was also valued by the Advisory Board, the Pulitzer Prize was awarded to Rhodes.8 A slightly different jury from its predecessor was to judge over the books entered for the history category in March 1919. In their report to the Advisory Board the jurors stated that they, even after careful consideration, "find themselves unable to say that any of the books is at once so important and so well written as unquestionably to deserve... a prize. They therefore... recommend that the prize be not awarded for the year 1918."9 The Advisory Board accepted this proposal and voted for "no award" in the history category.10 1 Cf. Heinz-D. Fischer/Erika J. Fischer (Eds.), The Pulitzer Prize Archive, Vol. 7: American History Awards 1917-1991, Munich - New Providence - London - Paris 1994, LXVIII + 366 pp. 2 Quoted from Don C. Seitz, Joseph Pulitzer - His Life and Letters, New York 1924, p. 462. 3 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes. A History of the Awards in Books, Drama, Music, and Journalism, New York-London 1974, p. 63. 4 History Jury Report, May 8, 1917, pp. 1 f. 5 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes 1917-1991, New York 1991, p. 57. 6 History Jury Report, April 24,1918, p. 1. 7 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. tit., p. 63. 8 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. 9 History Jury Report, March 18, 1919, pp. 1 f. 10 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57.

304 One year later, in March 1920, the same jury voted clearly and definitely for one candidate in this category. The history jury was "unanimous in awarding the prize to Justin Harvey Smith for his book entitled The War with Mexico."11 Again, the Advisory Board did not contradict the jury's proposal, and awarded Smith the prize for his work.12 In 1921 the task of making a suitable proposal for the history category was handed over to a new jury, which took over. The jury's chairman told the Advisory Board after finishing the first selection, "that the committee to award the Pulitzer Prize for American History names The Victory at Sea, by Admiral Wm. S. Sims, as best deserving the prize among the books submitted."13 Again, the Advisory Board agreed and bestowed the award on William Sowden Sims and his collaborator, Burton J. Hendrick.14 In 1922 the process of selecting a Pulitzer Prize winner was comparatively easy. The jury unanimously found The Founding of New England, by James Truslow Adams, "in every respect deserving,"15 as it says in the report. The Advisory Board agreed to this proposal and named Adams the Pulitzer Prize winner in the history category.16 In spring 1923 the jury consisted of the same members as in the years before, thus constituting a team with some considerable experience. Although this particular jury report is recorded as missing, there are several hints that the jury unanimously proposed that Charles Warren be awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his book The Supreme Court in United States History.17 As there were no contradictions from the Advisory Board, the well-known lawyer became the Pulitzer Prize winner.18 The experienced jury of the previous two years was also given the task of deciding on the award winner in 1924. The members unanimously decided to propose that Charles Howard Mcllwain be awarded the prize for his book The American Revolution - A Constitutional Interpretation.^ As the proposal was accepted by the Advisory Board, Mcllwain received the Pulitzer Prize in the history category.20 The jury of 1925 considered three books to be worthy for the final choice, namely: The Colonial Background of the American Revolution, by Charles M. Andrews; The American States during and after the Revolution, 1775-1789, by Allan Nevins; A History of the American Frontier, by Frederic L. Paxson. "The final decision rests upon the scope, manner of treatment, and evidence of research shown in Professor Paxson's volume," it says in the jury report.21 The Advisory Board followed the jury's suggestion and awarded Paxson with the Pulitzer Prize in the history category.22 This was not to be the case in 1926, when the same jury members as in the year before had to select among the entries for a first proposal to the Advisory Board. The first selection narrowed the field down to the following titles and authors: Great Britain and the American Civil War, by Ephraim D. Adams; Jefferson and Hamilton, by Claude Bowers; A History of the United States, Vol. VI, by Edward Charming; L'Esprit Revolutionnaire

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

History Jury Report, March 19,1920, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, May 8, 1921, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, March 22,1922, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. Cf. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 63. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, March 24, 1924, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, March 9, 1925, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57.

305 en France et aux Etats-Unis, by Bernard Fay.23 This list of finalists was the only common basis the three jury members could reach in their evaluation of the entries, because their opinions on the books and authors differed to a high extent. Faced by many dissonances in the jury's proposal, the Advisory Board took its traditional right to make an independent decision, and awarded the prize to Edward Channing.24 In 1927 the task of assessing entries for the history category was given to the same jury as in the year before. Evidently alluding to the dissonances of the preceding jury report, it states in the 1927 report to the Advisory Board: "I am happy to say that the members of the Jury... unite on Pinckney's Treaty - A Study of America's Advantage from Europe's Distress, 1783-1800, by Samuel Flagg Bemis... That work is selected because of its thorough and wide research, its use of the material, and its intelligent interpretation of a diplomatic incident of wide result.25 The Advisory Board saw no reason to reject this proposal and as a consequence awarded the Pulitzer Prize for history to Samuel F. Bemis.26 In 1928 when eighteen entries were in competition with one another for the Pulitzer Prize for history, the jury again consisted of the same members. The jurors were "unanimous in recommending for the award... Vernon Louis Parrington's two volumes issued under the general title oi Main Currents in American Thought... The decision rests upon the following considerations: that the work is original in conception and in performance; it shows research and scholarship; and it throws fresh light upon many aspects of our history. It is penetrating and acute."27 The Advisory Board members were entirely persuaded by this praise and awarded Vernon L. Parrington with the Pulitzer Prize for history.28 In 1929 only nineteen entries were assessed for the award. "The members of the jury," it says in their report, "are unanimous in selecting Fred Albert Shannon's The Organization and Administration of the Union Army, 1861-1865. That work is selected because of its wide investigation, its close and generally correct handling of facts, and the main purpose of the book which has been supported in such a way as not to confuse by a multiplicity of facts hastily thrown together after the manner of an academic essay."29 The Advisory Board agreed to this proposal, thus awarding the prize to Fred A. Shannon.30 After looking through the incoming material, the jury of 1930 was not able to vote unanimously for one entry. "I regret to report," the jury chairman wrote to the Advisory Board, "that the members of the Jury... have been unable to agree unanimously on any work... The published work in history during the year has generally been considered as singularly disappointing, and, indeed, the jury would prefer not to award the prize at all this year unless the terms require it. I believe they do, and therefore the jury attempted to reach a decision. The two books that received most consideration were Van Tyne's War of Independence and Bowers' Tragic Era. The former received one vote, and the latter two, for the prize. The minority member who voted for Van Tyne's book considers it a scholarly work, displaying sane and balanced judgments, embodying the latest knowledge on its subject, written in a clear and attractive style."31 Contradictory to the opinion 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

History Jury Report, March 11, 1926, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. Letter to Frank D. Fackenthal, March 16,1927, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, March 10, 1928, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, March 13, 1929, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, March 25, 1930, p. 1.

306 of the jury majority, the Advisory Board decided to award Claude H. Van Tyne with the Pulitzer Prize in the history category.32 The members of the history jury in 1931 declared in their report that they were "unanimously and strongly of the opinion that The Coming of the War, by Professor Schmitt, should receive the award... The work is not only far above any other published by an American historian during the year 1930 but is an outstanding event in American scholarship. It is the result of ten years' laborious research, pursued with meticulous regard for the truth only. The presentation of the material is admirable. It is as impartial as it is possible for human judgment to be. The style is lucid, and the book will interest the general reader as well as the scholar... We strongly urge that the prize be conferred on Professor Schmitt. In case of such disagreement... we unanimously suggest as an alternative Professor Morison's Founders of the Bay Colony... In importance it is not comparable to Professor Schmitt's, but it is interesting, and scholarly. It is a good book but not an outstanding one."33 After having evaluated the pro and contra arguments, the Advisory Board followed the jury's favoured proposal and awarded the Pulitzer Prize for history to Bernadotte E. Schmitt.34 In 1932 the Pulitzer Prize History jury was identical to the preceding one. In their address to the Advisory Board the jury members were of "the opinion that General Pershing's My Experiences in the World War is the best work of the year and the one which should receive the award. We have seriously considered three or four others, namely King Cotton Diplomacy, by Frank Lawrence Owsley; The Epic of America, by James Truslow Adams, and The Martial Spirit, by Walter Millis, but we are of the opinion that Pershing has not only written the most authoritative, the most penetrating and the most decisive account of our own part in the war but that he has presented a finer spirit in narration than any of the others, more objectivity, more fullness, and more balance."35 As one of the jury members put it, Pershing's book is epic "in the sense that it is a great national story, displaying the American character in its finest aspects."36 Although a book concerning World War I had already been awarded a Pulitzer Prize in the previous year, the Advisory Board did not hesitate to once again give preference to this subject, and awarded the prize to John J. Pershing.37 In 1933 the jury's composition remained the same as in the two preceding years. Nevertheless the team was confronted with an unexpected problem which it had never before encountered. "We have not been able," the jury chairman wrote to the Advisory Board, "to reach a unanimous agreement, but two of us... are of the opinion that the prize should be given to the book of Professor Frederick J. Turner, entitled The Significance of Sections in American History... This is a selection of studies made by Professor Turner during the years of his teaching, on many subjects in American history... Two of the Committee, therefore, recommend that this book... be given the Pulitzer Prize... The other member of the Committee... does not agree with our decision and wishes to recommend, in its stead, the book of Mr. Mark Sullivan on Our Times, 1909-1914... These two books are the only ones suggested by the jury for the award. We therefore refrain from discussing other volumes which we have considered but which we do not 32 33 34 35 36 37

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, March 25,1931, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, March 22, 1932, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57.

307 recommend."38 As the Advisory Board accepted the jury's majority proposal, the Pulitzer Prize was given to Frederick J. Turner.39 It was difficult for the jurors of 1934 to reach a unanimous agreement on one of the thirty-one entries. The jury gave serious consideration to: Our Earliest Colonial Settlements, their Diversities of Origin and Later Characteristics, by Charles M. Andrews; Divided Loyalties, by Lewis Einstein; History of Our Times, Vol. V: Over Here, 19141918, by Mark Sullivan. Sullivan's book, the chairman of the jury wrote to the Advisory Board, "in the opinion of a majority of our Committee" is "a careful and vivid account of our participation in the World War, of the events in which America took part, of the personalities that participated in those events, of what they said and did, of the measures adopted by our government and people during this crisis... Two members of the Committee... recommend that Mark Sullivan's book be given the Pulitzer Prize..."40 Not following the jury's proposal, the Advisory Board made an independent decision to award the prize to Herbert Agar's The People's Choice,^ a book that is not mentioned in the jury report at all. In 1935 the jury members put forward a common proposal from a selection of thirtyeight entries. "We unanimously recommend," it says in the report, "that the Prize be given to Charles McLean Andrews... for his book on The Colonial Period of American History, the result of more prolonged study and mature scholarship than any other volume submitted this year, or, for that matter, in most previous years... Another fine production submitted this year is that of Allen French, The First Year of the American Revolution."^ The Advisory Board accepted the jury's first choice and named Charles McLean Andrews the Pulitzer Prize winner in the history category.43 An identical jury in 1936 had the task of assessing the work of more than thirty candidates for the award. "Many of these books are of inferior quality or are on local or limited subjects," reads the jury report, "and ought not to be considered worthy of recommendation. But we are unanimously of the opinion that there is one clearly outstanding and superior work that possesses the qualities that are desired for this prize and for which it should be awarded. This is the volume submitted by Professor Andrew Cunningham McLaughlin... and entitled The Constitutional History of the United States... In view of the conspicuous and outstanding merits of this book, we as a jury have no other recommendation to make. The book is far superior in every particular to any other work submitted to us this year. We heartily commend it to the consideration of the Advisory Board."44 Here, the convincing arguments for Andrew C. McLaughlin were accepted, and he was awarded the Pulitzer History Prize.45 In 1937 an identical jury was once again able to reach a unanimous vote. From a selection of more than forty entries, the Advisory Board was told that "we are unanimously in favor of making the award to Van Wyck Brooks for his Flowering of New England, by far the best of the series. This book is, both from the point of view of the material examined and analyzed and from the point of view of the literary skill and charm of the author, by far the leading work that has come to our attention and we 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

History Jury Report, March 17, 1933, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Minority Report, March 15, 1934, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, March 19, 1935, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, March 10, 1936, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57.

308 heartily recommend that it be given the Pulitzer Prize in view of its conspicuous and outstanding merits."46 There were no objections raised on the part of the Advisory Board, so Van Wyck Brooks was awarded the prize.47 Finding a Prize winner in 1938 was more complicated. A new jury was totally divided in their judgment on the entries. As a consequence it took much time and effort to choose one favourite from five finalists. While two jury members proposed to award the prize to Paul Buck's Road to Reunion, the third juror was strictly opposed to this suggestion. This member was of the opinion that A History of Chicago by Bessie Pierce, a book given third rank by the other two jurors, deserved the Pulitzer Prize. Another book, The Monroe Doctrine, 1867-1907, by Dexter Perkins, was alternatively favoured by two jury members, the third juror, however, placed it fifth.48 The Advisory Board finally followed the proposal of the jury's majority and awarded Paul Herman Buck with the Pulitzer Prize in the history category.49 In spring 1939, when the same persons again made up the Pulitzer Prize jury for history, there was no disagreement on the preferred candidate for the award. "The committee is unanimous in choosing for first place, Mr. Frank L. Mott's A History of American Magazines. In the opinion of the committee this work stands far in front of any of the others named in the panel of their possible choices," the jury report put its case for the book, and went on to state that, "Mr. Mott's work blazes a trail in a new and unworked field. It is itself a monumental study, of exact scholarship, and extraordinarily skillful in its arrangement of a mass of complex and hitherto unstudied material."50 Although there were some other books mentioned in the jury report, the vote for Frank Luther Mott was that clear and evident that the Advisory Board agreed to confer the award on the press historian who specialized in the history of magazines.51 In 1940 when the same jury evaluated the entries, a common proposal was achieved during the discussions. "Quite independently," it says in the jury report, "all three came to agreement on five possible titles out of the forty-four that were submitted...: 1. Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln - The War Years; 2. R. G. Albion, The Rise of New York Port, 1815-1860; 3. L. B. Shippee, Canadian-American Relations, 1849-1874; 4. Perry Miller, The New England Mind - The Seventeenth Century; 5. C. A. and Mary Beard, America in Midpassage... The first choice, Sandburg's Lincoln," as it says in the report later on, was an extraordinary effort, "both in substance and form, an achievement worthy of the reward to which we recommend it."52 Although it was not entirely clear if the book about Lincoln should not rather have been placed in the biography category, the Advisory Board awarded the Pulitzer Prize for history to Carl Sandburg.53 In 1941 the jurors formulated their position as follows: "The recommendation for No. 1 rank goes to the late Marcus Lee Hansen,... primarily for his volume on The Atlantic Migration... which... is a sweeping and beautifully organized presentation of the background of the whole immigration movement to America in the 19th century... The style is smooth and gives a sense of an amazing maturity of mind... The volume by Dean Theodore C. Biegen on the Norwegian Migration to America - The American Transition 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

History Jury Report, March 19, 1937, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, March 14,1938, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, March 14,1939, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, March 12, 1940, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57.

309

is in the same general field as... Hansen's but of an entirely different character... Biegen has taken the story of one people as his theme... The third ranking goes to the volume by... Ralph H. Gabriel... on The Course of American Democratic Thought - An Intellectual History Since 1815... It is well written, some would say very well written, and a considerable number better written possibly than the first two..."54 The Advisory Board considered the first-ranked book to be worthy of an award and gave the Pulitzer Prize to Marcus Lee Hansen.55 In 1942 the jurors decided to draw up a list of five finalists from a total of almost fifty entries. In their report the jury members placed first Margaret Leech for her volume Reveille in Washington. "We were agreed," the report says, "that in this volume she has given a complete and satisfying picture, well based on sound historical work, of the capital of the nation during four most critical years... We ranked... Dexter Perkins' Hand Off- A History of the Monroe Doctrine second because it represents the summation of a life work on an important topic... Third, Wecter's The Hero in America is next to Miss Leech's book the most interestingly written from the standpoint of style and organization... Fourth, Dr. Burnett's volume (The Continental Congress) is, like Perkins' volume, the summation of a lifetime of work... Fifth, Van Doren's Secret History of the American Revolution... reads well... It represents a considerable amount of library and archival labor."56 The Advisory Board decided to award the first-ranked author and named Margaret Leech the Pulitzer Prize winner in the history category.5^ The jury of 1943 decided on a list of three outstanding works, of "the following ranking: 1. Esther Forbes, Paul Revere...; 2. Wood Gray, Hidden Civil War...; 3. Douglas S. Freeman, Lee's Lieutenants... Beyond this grouping of the first three," the jury report continued, "it would be difficult to find from our interchange any unity of opinion and, if there were, any strong conviction that books below the first three should be seriously considered for the Pulitzer Prize." Miss Forbes wrote some kind of "the history of Boston and the pre-Revolutionary community... Wood Gray is a young man in the field of American history... The Hidden Civil War... is really a very exceptional first product of a young scholar... Mr. Freeman had the idea first of writing the history of the Army of Northern Virginia. By request he turned aside to write a volume on Lee first, which received the Pulitzer biographical Prize some years ago. The three volumes on Lee are now to be followed by three volumes on his lieutenants... It is skillfully done..."58 The Advisory Board awarded Esther Forbes the Pulitzer Prize for history.5^ The jurors of 1944 were "unanimous in recommending for first place the volume by Merle Curti, The Growth of American Thought" and justified their choice as follows: "The volume by Mr. Curti is one of the most creditable achievements of recent American historical scholarship. It is in a sense a pathbreaking work. It stands out in a field that has been treated only fragmentarily. It ranges over all that has been done, adds great masses of original data, and organizes this material in an exceptionally skillful manner... As to the other volumes," the report went on, the jury was "less certain or convinced about the rating or the order in which they should be placed. By combining the comments and expressed or implied ratings, it would appear that Bernard De Vote's volume, The Year of 54 55 56 57 58 59

History Jury Report, March 19, 1941, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. History Jury Report, March 11,1942, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. History Jury Report, March 18,1943, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58.

310 Decision, was runner-up... Close behind it... was Bemis' The Latin American Policy of the United States..."60 As the vote for the first-placed book was the most convincing, the Advisory Board named Merle Curti the Pulitzer Prize winner for history.61 In 1945 the history jury in their report to the Advisory Board briefly named the following finalists: "Number 1 is Douglas Freeman's third volume of Lee's Lieutenants; Number 2 is Dixon Wecter's When Johnny Comes Marching Home; Number 3 is Krout and Fox's The Completion of Independence... Following these but not requiring special comment are Mrs. Alice Felt Tyler's Freedom's Ferment, and then Bailey's Woodrow Wilson and the Lost Peace, and Perkins' America and Two Wars."6^ This list, which was followed by additional information some days later,63 was entirely rejected by the Advisory Board. Instead of following the jury's proposals the Advisory Board awarded Stephen Bonsai the prize for his book Unfinished Business.64 For the first time since the controversy on Herbert Agar's award - which was more than a decade before - the Advisory Board took its proper right to award someone who was not on the jury's list at all. In 1946 a partially newly-formed jury "unanimously voted for Schlesinger's work... Their report concluded that The Age of Jackson will survive 'and date a new approach by future scholars' to the Jacksoniw era."65 The Advisory Board accepted the jury's suggestion and awarded Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.66 In the 1947 history jury's report "the five outstanding publications" were, "in the order named: 1. James P. Baxter ΙΠ, Scientists Against Time...; 2. Lawrence H. Gipson, The British Empire Before the Revolution...; 3. Burton J. Hendrick, Lincoln's War Cabinet...; 4. Alfred H. Bill, The Beleaguered City...; 5. Donald M. Nelson, Arsenal of Democracy... Baxter's book," it says of their first choice, "describes the contributions of American scientists to the winning of World War Π. An exceedingly difficult subject to handle, he tells the story in terms understandable to the lay reader and reveals many important facts for the first time. His manuscript was carefully checked by scientists before publication. The account reads well, with occasional flashes of humor. It seems certain to be a work of permanent value. "6^ Obviously these arguments persuaded the Advisory Board to award James P. Baxter III the Pulitzer Prize for history.68 In 1948 the jury's proposals to the Advisory Board were as follows: 1. Bernard DeVoto, Across the Wide Missouri; 2. Samuel Eliot Morison, History of United States Naval Operations in World War H; 3. Allan Nevins, Ordeal of the Union; 4. Lloyd Morris, Postscript to Yesterday; 5. T. J. Wertenbaker, The Puritan Oligarchy.69 "These recommendations," it says in the jury report, "are unanimous. All five of these works have the merit of maintaining scholarly standards and at the same time being well enough written to interest the thoughtful general reader. DeVoto's book presents a masterly account of the mountain fur trade both as a business and a way of life. It is an original treatment based on personal acquaintance with the area concerned and on years of research in the original documents... DeVoto's style is sinewy and informal as befits his 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

History Jury Report, March 16, 1944, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. Brief note of the History Jury Report, March 10, 1945, p. 1. Cf. History Jury Report, March 12, 1945, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 213. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. History Jury Report, March 10, 1947, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. History Jury Report, March 18, 1948, p. 1.

311 theme..."70 As the vote for the first-ranked book was the most convincing one, the Advisory Board awarded Bernard DeVoto with the Pulitzer Prize in the history category.71 A history jury of 1949 stated in the report, that "three books... stand out above all others in the competition... One of them is the best work of American literary history, another the best study in American economic history, a third the best work in American political history, to appear for years... It is difficult to measure literary, political or economic history in terms of the other two, it has not been easy for us to pick a first choice... We have finally reached a unanimous agreement to recommend Roy Franklin Nichols, The Disruption of American Democracy. The two other books that made the competition this year unusually keen, were the three-volume Literary History of the United States, edited by Spiller, Thorp, Canby and Johnson; and Edward C. Kirkland's Men, Cities and Transportation - A Study in New England History, 1820-1900... We have finally agreed to recommend Nichols' book for first choice," the report adds, "because it represents the most penetrating study of American politics yet made for the period just preceding the Civil War, and because we believe that it will have a major influence on American historical writing."7^ These arguments were accepted by the Advisory Board, which, as a consequence, awarded the Pulitzer Prize for history to Roy Franklin Nichols.73 In 1950 five authors and books were considered for the Pulitzer Prize and ranked in the following order: "1. L. H. Gipson, The Great War for the Empire; 2. O. W. Larkin, Art and Life in America', 3. S. E. Morison, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, vols. IV and V; 4. L. C. Hunter, Steamboats on the Western Rivers; 5. S. F. Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy... Gipson's undertaking... is one of the great individual historical enterprises of our generation... Larkin's book is a skillful and original attempt to correlate artistic achievements with social and other conditions in the history of the American people... Its greatest merit perhaps lies in its point of view... Morison's volumes... are distinguished for judgment, knowledge and graphic description... Hunter's book is of narrower scope than those that have been mentioned, but it is marked by exhaustive research and by the skillful weaving of economic, technological and social factors into his account... Bemis's account treads more familiar territory, but it too is meaty and based on painstaking research..."74 After a number of years in which the Advisory Board had accepted the jury's first-ranked proposal, the decision was different this time. In awarding Oliver W. Larkin with the Pulitzer Prize for history, the Advisory Board members demonstrated their preference for the second-placed candidate on the jury's list.75 The jury in 1951 had to select from sixty-eight entries. The following five books were finally placed on the jury's list: "1. The Old Northwest - Pioneer Period 1815-1840, by R. Carlyle Buley; 2. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Julian P. Boyd; 3. And the War Came, by Kenneth M. Stampp; 4. Church and State in the United States, by Anson Phelps Stokes; 5. Breaking the Bismarck Barrier, by Samuel Eliot Morison... Buley has written a readable, well-formed history based upon contemporary sources, written and printed, and containing valuable illustrations and maps. This book should interest laymen as well as scholars. Boyd's edition of Jefferson's writings and papers is a monu70 71 72 73 74 75

Ibid.,pp. I f . Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. History Jury Report, March 7, 1949, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. History Jury Report, March 10, 1950, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58.

312

mental undertaking... Stampp... is particularly interesting in discussing the economic considerations which caused Northern business at first to want to appease the South and then to insist on a Tough' policy... Stokes's massive treatment of the relations of church and state in America commands admiration because of the thoroughness of his research and the intrinsic value of the material he presents... Morison... was an actual observer of much that he describes, but he also draws upon formal and informal sources of both the Allies and the enemy."76 The first-ranked book was once again accepted by the Advisory Board. The Pulitzer Prize in the history category was awarded to R. Carlyle Buley.77 As the 1952 jury report is considered to be lost, it is impossible to completely reconstruct the details of the selection process. Oscar Handlin was awarded with the Pulitzer Prize in the history category by the Advisory Board for his book The Uprooted™ John Hohenberg describes Handlin's work as a "classic study of European immigration to America," and he adds with respect to the titles awarded in the preceding years: "Nearly all of these works, in one way or another, served to broaden the field of the American historian and the best of them, particularly Handlin's book, set high standards for innovative scholarship. The balance of responsibility for historical literature had long since swung toward the academics whose work was very largely subsidized by their universities or by private foundations and away from the noninstitutionalized writers of the type of Douglas Southall Freeman and Carl Sandburg. But now and then, one of the unaffiliated would turn up in the mass of academic literature with a work that simply demanded attention."79 In 1953 the jury had seventy books to evaluate. The following five titles were selected by the jurors: "1. George Dangerfield, The Era of Good Feelings; 2. William L. Langer and S. Everett Gleason, The Challenge to Isolation, 1937-1940; 3. Carl F. Wittke, Refugees of Revolution - The German Forty-Eighters in America; 4. Bell I. Wiley, The Life of Billy Yank - The Common Soldier of the Union; 5. T. Harry Williams, Lincoln and His Generals... Dangerfield's book perhaps comes closest to being a work of literary art. His account is also founded on solid and careful research... The book is replete with brilliant characterizations, stimulating reflections and fresh insights and should be of as much interest to the layman as to the professional historian... The work by Langer and Gleason... has a panoramic sweep, and the authors evidence an unusual mastery of global politics always tempered by precision of scholarship... Wittke tells the story of the defeated German revolutionists who fled to the United States in 1848..."80 The Advisory Board saw no reason to reject the first-ranked proposal and named George Dangerfield the Pulitzer Prize winner in the history category.^ Although there is no jury report from 1954 either, the process of finding a Pulitzer Prize winner is nevertheless fairly easy to trace. John Hohenberg was quite successful in closing the information gaps, and referring to the small number of non-professional historians to win the Pulitzer Prize for American History, he writes of the winner of that year: "Bruce Catton, a former newspaperman and former public official, was such a historian and the book that brought him prominence was his study of the last year of the Civil War, A Stillness at Appomattox. The... jury in history for 1954... were understand76 77 78 79 80 81

History Jury Report, March 15, 1951, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. Ibid. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 215. History Jury Report, March 5, 1953, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58.

313 ably conditioned to think of the fine work of their fellow professionals - the massive and authoritative study by William L. Langer and S. Everett Gleason, The Undeclared War; Clinton Rossiter's Seed-time of the Republic; and Perry Miller's The New England Mind from Colony to Province. But they did include Cation's book with this comment: Ά Stillness at Appomattox is... a moving book, with good character portraits and vivid portrayal of the sights, sounds, and feelings of the battlefield'... Over the jury's choice The Undeclared War,... the Board voted for Catton, without dissent, thus recognizing a new and unaffiliated historian."82 The jury in 1955 had to evaluate seventy-two books. Five titles were considered worthy of a Pulitzer Prize: "1. Paul Morgan, Great River - The Rio Grande in North American History; 2. Lewis Atherton, Main Street on the Middle Border; 3. Leonard D. White, The Jacksonians; 4. Clement Eaton, A History of the Southern Confederacy; 5. Thomas J. Pressly, Americans Interpret Their Civil War... Morgan's Great River... is an imaginative and charmingly written account of the Rio Grande and the peoples it affected from pre-Columbian times down to the present. The author enriches his canvas with a wealth of incident, topographical description and human drama without losing the reader in a maze of detail... This attractive and informative work should make an appeal to both laymen and scholars... Atherton's Main Street on the Middle Border... deals with the small town in Middle Western life in the period 1865-7950... White's The Jacksonians... is a pioneer work in its field... Eaton's History of the Southern Confederacy... reads easily and is the best we have of the Confederacy... Pressly's Americans Interpret Their Civil War... is a thoughtful, well-written and stimulating study of the shifting interpretations of the causes of the great sectional conflict from the war period itself to the present day...."83 Confronted with the merits of all books mentioned in the report the Advisory Board decided to accept the first-ranked proposal and awarded the Pulitzer Prize for history to Paul Morgan.84 An entirely new jury presented the Advisory Board with a list of five finalists in 1956 which consisted of the following titles and authors: 1. Hofstadter, The Age of Reform; 2. Hofstadter and Metzger, A History of Academic Freedom in the United States; 3. Bridenbaugh, Cities in Revolt; 4. Higham, Strangers in the Land; 5. Hidy and Hidy, Pioneering in Big Business?5 Although there were no additional reasons given for the jury's choice and ranking the Advisory Board accepted this small list and awarded Richard Hofstadter with the Pulitzer Prize for his book The Age of Reform?6 The same jurors formed the committee in 1957, and it was their unanimous decision to propose George F. Kennan's Russia Leaves the War - Soviet-American Relations 19171920 for a Pulitzer Prize. The jury ranked four further candidates as follows: 2. Perry Miller, Errand into the Wilderness; 3. Kenneth M. Stampp, The Peculiar Institution; 4. Arthur Link, Wilson - The New Freedom; 5. H. K. Beale, Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power; 6. John Hope Franklin, The Militant South. "Possibly some might object," the jurors added, "that the Kennan volume does not deal primarily with the history of the United States... Certainly, the changes which have occurred in the history of the world during the last half century have both broadened and deepened the content of American history greatly. The Kennan volume deals with one of these major 82 83 84 85 86

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 215 f. History Jury Report, March 8, 1955, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. History Jury Report, February 27, 1956, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58.

314 changes which has affected and continues to affect the course of American civilization."87 The Advisory Board found that the jury's choice was correct and awarded George F. Kennan with the Pulitzer Prize in the history category.88 After forty years of awarding Pulitzer Prizes it was time to take stock of the Prize's development and its history as well as finding a winner in 1958. "Most of the history volumes, but not all, for which Pulitzer Awards have been received have stood the test of time," one juror remarked and he continued: "Were one to hazard a guess, however, as to the number of 'mistakes' made in this respect, it is this writer's belief that it would be very small."89 The author of this comment was part of the jury in the history category in 1958. "Despite the thin crop of history books this year," it says in their report, "the five listed here are without question Pulitzer material...: 1. Bray Hammond, Banks and Politics in America from the Revolution to the Civil War, 2. Victor S. Mamatey, The United States and East Central Europe, 1914-1918; 3. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Crisis of the Old Order, 4. Herbert Feis, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin; 5. Frank L. Mott, History of American Magazines... Mamatey is a sound scholar but his book is of limited scope. There is not the slightest doubt that Bray Hammond's volume is the best of the lot."90 The Advisory Board thought the same, and named Bray Hammond the Pulitzer Prize winner in the history category.91 The newly elected jury of 1959 proposed, after evaluating the material, awarding the Pulitzer Prize to "the late Leonard D. White and to Jean Schneider for their work The Republican Era, 1869-1901. We are, in reality," the jury report continues, "recommending that the Prize be awarded to them for the whole series of books which they have published: The Federalists, The Jeffersonians, The Jacksonians. These together with the volume published in 1958 (The Republican Era) have contributed a new technique to historical scholarship. This series of volumes has broken new ground in the field of historiography. Before these works appeared, we knew little or nothing of administrative history. We now have a complete and perceptive history of the American phase of this subject written from sources never before used for such purpose and shaped by an original conceptualization which has made a pattern for future writing in the field."92 Further books considered were: Shelby Foote, The Civil War - A Narrative; Daniel J. Boorstin, The Americans - The Colonial Experience; George E. Mowry, The Era of Theodore Roosevelt. "All of these volumes," the jury explained with regards to the finalists from the second rank onwards, "deal with subjects which have been repeatedly presented by historians of the American scene."93 Because of this clear difference in quality between the first-ranked title and the other finalists, it was evident to the Advisory Board that Leonard D. White and Jean Schneider should be awarded the Pulitzer Prize.94 In their report the jurors of 1960 made a clear case for awarding the prize "to Henry F. May for his book The End of American Innocence, a distinguished contribution to intellectual history... This is in a real sense a pioneer work based upon an extraordinary amount of research. It sets a much needed pattern for intellectual history which has hitherto been rather amorphous. Our second choice is Hodding Carter's The Angry Scar. It 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

History Jury Report, February 19, 1957, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. Harry J. Carman, History Awards, in: Columbia Library Columns (New York), Vol. VI/No. 3, May 1957, pp. 37 f. History Jury Report, March 31,1958, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. History Jury Report, March 12, 1959, p. 1. History Jury Additional Report, April 3,1959, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58.

315 is a judicious treatment of the history of Southern Reconstruction... This is an able interpretation, but it is not the original or path breaking analysis that we find our first choice to be. Our third choice is Margaret Leech's In the Days of McKinley. This is a well-written, intensive account of the years at the end of the last century. It has much to commend it, but it is absorbing rather than critical. The author finds little to question in this so-called golden age."95 Although her book on McKinley was only placed third in this category, the Advisory Board awarded Margaret Leech with the Pulitzer Prize for history .96 In 1961 the jury cast an unanimous vote for one candidate. "We recommend," it says in the jury report, "that the prize be awarded to Herbert Feis for his study entitled Between War and Peace - The Potsdam Conference... Two other volumes ranked high in our estimate but they are not close to Herbert Feis' work. They are John C. Miller, The Federalist Era, 1789-1801... and Bernhard Knollenberg, The Origin of the American Revolution, 1759-1766... We honor Herbert Feis for his wide-ranging examination of the sources, his originality in presenting his findings and the superior literary craftsmanship that distinguishes his book."97 The Advisory Board accepted this praise and delivered the Pulitzer Prize for history to Herbert Feis.98 The 1962 jury report named three finalists. First choice given in this report was Lawrence H. Gipson's book The Triumphant Empire - Thunder Clouds Gather in the West, 1763-1766: "It is a project of unusual significance in its comprehensive scope, its use of a tremendous amount of source material, its analytic competence, its lucid style, and its contribution to historical understanding... Second choice: Thomas D. Clark's The Emerging South... handles one of the most difficult problems in our historiography with rare capacity... Third choice: Clement Eaton, The Growth of Southern Civilization, 17901860... has neither the originality nor the significance of new interpretation which mark the other two."99 The Advisory Board had no reason to dispute this opinion and, as a consequence, awarded Lawrence H. Gipson the Pulitzer Prize.100 The jurors of 1963 had to select the winner of the Pulitzer Prize from forty-seven entries. The following list was the result of their discussions: (1.) Constance McLaughlin Green, Washington - Village and Capital, 1800-1878; (2.) Richard S. Dunn, Puritans and Yankees...; (3.) John Dos Passes, Mr. Wilson's War. "Among these three," the jury members stated in their report, "we have no strong preference. We have placed Constance Green's volume first because it presents new material on the development of our capital city in such a way as to make more meaningful the history of the nation during the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century."101 The Advisory Board was persuaded by this argument and awarded the prize to Constance McLaughlin Green.102 In 1964 when two new members formed the jury, the proposal to the Advisory Board consisted of the following three titles: The Civil War, by Shelby Foote; Here Lies Virginia, by Ivor Noel Hume; and Puritan Village, by Sumner Chilton Powell. "Of the three books," the jury report states, "we cite as deserving special consideration for the Prize, we believe that the work of Mr. Powell is clearly superior to the other two and therefore we designate it as our choice for the prize... Mr. Powell has worked a very 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

History Jury Report, March 15,1960, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 58. History Jury Report, January 11,1961, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 58. History Jury Report, January 9, 1962, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. dr., p. 58. History Jury Report, January 10, 1963, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58.

316 small piece of ground with great resource and patience and considerable success."103 In this case too, the Advisory Board accepted the jury's proposal and named Sumner Chilton Powell the Pulitzer Prize winner for history.104 The 1965 jury was faced with extraordinary problems in their selection of the finalists in the history category. Although they agreed on a list of three books, the jury admitted in their report to the Advisory Board, that "a final selection from among them is not easy to make, considering the variety of themes and the contrasts in literary manners which they represent...: First choice: When the Cheering Stopped, by Gene Smith: For the new light it throws upon a critical episode in the history of the Presidency, for the absorbing readability of its telling, and for the contemporary significance of its subject. Second choice: Diplomat among Warriors, by Robert Murphy: For the importance of its contribution to the eye-witness history of vital phases of World War II and subsequent events, for the honesty of its view, and for the unstudied animation of its style. Third choice: The Greenback Era, by Irwin Unger: For its scholarly excellence, for its examination and demonstration of a new theory of historical forces at work in the postCivil War period, and for its literary quality."105 The jury report further comments on the third-ranked title: "It is bound to exercise a major influence on the revisionism of the historiography of this period for a long time to come. It is not too much to say that the book is superbly researched. In purely intellectual values, it is probably the most significant of the books in this final choice of three."106 These last points in particular probably persuaded the Advisory Board to award Irwin Unger with the Pulitzer Prize107 instead of following the jury's proposal. 1966 brought a number of problems to the jury which put forward a two-ranked list: Richard B. Morris, The Peacemakers, and Perry Miller, Life of the Mind in America. Two jurors it states in the jury report, "vote for Richard B. Morris... They feel strongly that it is head and shoulders above all other history books... They consider it to be a splendid example of narrative history dealing with a grand theme... in a grand fashion..." The third juror voted for Miller's work: "It offers, he maintains, a fresh view of a whole subject, which will evoke continuing discussion and thought..."108 In spite of the contradictions of the jury members, the minority's vote was finally decisive. As a consequence the Advisory Board awarded the Pulitzer Prize to Perry Miller109 who had already been a finalist in the Pulitzer Prize history category in the mid-fifties.110 The jurors of 1967 were confronted with seventy-six entries. "The general level of both scholarship and literature was high," the jury report stressed, "half of the books submitted to us were worthy of serious consideration, and eight or ten were good enough to have justified an award... There was, at an early stage, general agreement on the five or six best books of the year, and it is only fair to list these: Goetzmann, Exploration and Empire...; Merk, Monroe Doctrine and American Expansionism...; Morgan, Congress and the Constitution...; De Conde, The Quasi-War with France...; Blodgett, The Gentle Reformers...; Young, The Washington Community... After considerable discussion and several meetings the choice boiled down to the first two books on this list, and eventually the com103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

History Jury Report, January 21, 1964, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. History Jury Report, undated (January 1965), p. 4. Ibid., p. 3. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. History Jury Report, December 18,1965, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. Cf. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 215.

317

Pulitzer Prize for History, 1967

318 mittee reached unanimous and harmonious agreement on a first choice: Goetzmann, Exploration and Empire - The Explorer and the Scientist in the Winning of the American West. This book is not only a most remarkable achievement for a young man, but a tremendous book in its own right, tremendous in size, in imagination and in interpretation... It is learned and scholarly, built on a massive documentary foundation. In conception, in research, in its findings, and in its interpretation, it is strikingly original... Finally, Exploration and Empire is written with real literary distinction."111 In view of this exceptional praise the Advisory Board followed the jury's proposal and awarded the Pulitzer Prize to William H. Goetzmann.112 In 1968 there were nearly no problems in finding a winner in the history category, because the jury "unanimously agreed to recommend to the Advisory Board that the award... be given to... Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution... This in their opinion," the report continues, "is a work of such originality, distinction, and enduring value for the understanding of the Revolution as to make it pre-eminent among all the nominations for the award. The jurors feel, however, that certain other works submitted are worthy of high commendation...: George B. Tindall, The Emergence of the New South', Alfred E. Young, The Democratic Republicans of New York', John Blum, The Morgenthau Diaries', John A. Hawgood, America's Western Frontiers."11·* There was no doubt for the Advisory Board as to award Bernard Bailyn in 1968.*14 The Pulitzer Prize History jury of 1969 came to the unanimous proposal to award Leonard Levy's book The Origins of the Fifth Amendment. "This struck all of us as a most distinguished work," it says in the jury's evaluation, "thoroughly researched, and in its findings reflecting mature consideration and balanced judgment... In addition, it is a landmark book which must be examined by anyone who seeks a real understanding of this important issue... It was the first choice of all of us, and we are happy to commend it for the prize."115 Although the report proposed two further finalists, namely Winthrop D. Jordan's White Over Black and John G. Sproat's The Best Men, the Advisory Board awarded Leonard W. Levy with the Pulitzer Prize.116 Four finalists were chosen at the end of the jury's discussion in 1970. The jurors named the following authors and books: "First choice: Dean Acheson, Present at the Creation; second choice: Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787; third choice: Bruce Catton, Grant Takes Command; fourth choice: Robert K. Murray, The Harding Era... Dean Acheson's... pages are wonderfully informative and enlightening, giving an unusual, always authentic perspective on how the United States government conducts its foreign affairs in peace and in war... Here is notable literary distinction, also an honesty that is not hidden by the irony, the sophistication, and truly elegant wit... Wood demonstrates that in rebelling against British rule the Americans appealed to the assumptions of the best British political thought of the age... Bruce Cation's... account of the Army of the Potomac's approach to Richmond is a magnificent description of Grant's hit-and-slide tactics that ought to help demolish the legend of Grant as a frontal assault specialist... Murray's book... is an important work, not only for its tendency to right the record itself, but for its revealing, indeed brilliant, demonstration 111 112 113 114 115 116

History Jury Report, February 2,1967, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 58. History Jury Report, December 30, 1967, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59. History Jury Report, December 23,1968, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59.

319 of how the myths about the period arose in the journalism of the time."117 The Advisory Board did not hesitate to award the prize to Dean Acheson, even though his book was distinctly autobiographical in character.118 The history jurors in 1971 were unable to reach a unanimous proposal in their report to the Advisory Board. The majority proposed for first place Roosevelt, the Soldier of Freedom, 1940-1945, by James MacGregor Burns for a Pulitzer Prize. "It is difficult sometimes," one reads in their report, "to distinguish between biography and history and in this case it is particularly difficult to do so. Burns' book... is a distinguished work of history whose focus is President Roosevelt... Not only does it place the President in a new perspective but it also offers new interpretations of the period and constitutes a major contribution to that period. Moreover it is written with clarity, vigor and grace... For second place we recommend Lawrence A. Cremin, American Education - the Colonial Experience, 1607-1783.,"119 The third jury member explained his minority opinion as follows: "I share some of my colleagues' regard for Burns' Roosevelt (book), but I think it is primarily a biography and should be judged in that category... My first choice is (Clifford K.) Shipton's Harvard Graduates..., an aspect of the history of Harvard University as seen through the lives of its graduates."120 Having evaluated the different arguments and positions the Advisory Board decided to award the Pulitzer Prize to MacGregor Burns.121 The jury members who had to decide on the award in 1972 were "unanimous in recommending the following:... Carl Degler, Neither Black Nor White,... is a brilliant book; short, well-written and breaks new ground... Our second choice is Adam Ulam, The Rivals,... an extremely intelligent and learned work on the relations between Russia and the United States in the period since 1945... Finally, the third place (though a very close third) is Morison's European Discovery of America..., distinguished, beautifully crafted, exciting to read and a major contribution."122 The Advisory Board awarded Carl Degler with the Pulitzer Prize.123 In 1973 the task of finding a Pulitzer Prize winner was given to a new jury. The jurors "unanimously and enthusiastically," it says in their report to the Advisory Board, proposed for the Pulitzer Prize "Michael Kämmen, People of Paradox - An Inquiry Concerning the Origins of American Civilization... The jury considered this book to be in a class by itself. For second place the jury, again by unanimous vote, selected John W. Blassingame, The Slave Community - Plantation Life in the Antebellum South... The jurors were not able to agree on their third and fourth choices," which were: David McCullough, The Great Bridge; David S. Lovejoy, The Glorious Revolution in America; Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People; Pauline Maier, From Resistance to Revolution.^ The Advisory Board took little account of the other titles and named Michael Kämmen the winner.125 A lot of work had to be done by the jurors in 1974 in their selection of a suitable winner. "The task of the History Jury," it is written in the report, "was particularly dif117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

History Jury Report, January 6,1970, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59. History Jury Majority Report, January 8,1971, p. 1. History Jury Minority Report, January 12,1971, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59. History Jury Report, December 27, 1971, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59. History Jury Report, December 21, 1972, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59.

320 ficult this year, partly because of the large number of volumes submitted, well over 100, and partly because there were so many excellent works to be considered... We were able finally to agree on the first two choices but not on the third choice. We are unanimous in recommending as our first choice... Daniel J. Boorstin's The Americans - The Democratic Experience... It is an important book, ranking with such multi-volume histories of the United States as those by Rhodes and McMaster. For second choice, we are unanimous in recommending Stephen Thernstrom's The Other Bostonians... It is a clear, readable, statistical essay on social mobility in the United States. It is one of the best works in quantitative history we have encountered and the author is particularly frank in dealing with the shortcomings as well as the advantages of his method."126 There was no doubt for the Advisory Board to award Daniel J. Boorstin with the Pulitzer Prize.127 When the jury members of 1975 met for the first time, sixty-one books were presented for evaluation. Following discussions lasting for some months the following decision was expressed in the report: "Our unanimous first choice... is Salem Possessed - The Social Origins of Witchcraft, by Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum... (It) is the very best example of the new social history of which we are aware, for this study, which ostensibly deals with only one small New England town, raises very broad questions concerning the transformation of American life at the end of the seventeenth century, a transformation from a religion-oriented to a commerce-oriented society... For second place the jury... selects All God's Dangers - The Life of Nate Shaw, by Theodore Rosengarten... For third place the jury unanimously recommends Roll, Jordan, Roll The World The Slaves Made, by Eugene D. Genovese."128 In a separate additional vote the jury proposed, "to award, in addition to the regular prizes in History and Biography, a Special Citation to Jefferson and His Time, by Dumas Malone... We believe that Malone's work is one of the most important and distinguished studies now in progress in either American History or Biography."12^ Surprisingly, the Advisory Board awarded Dumas Malone not as one would expect with the Special Citation award proposed by the jury, but with the regular Pulitzer Prize for history.130 By proposing Paul Horgan's book Lamy of Santa Fe for the Pulitzer Prize, the history jury in 1976 decisively favoured one entry. "It is substantial and highly informative history," the jury report states, "covering a wide range of life in the old west from a remarkably fresh point of view... This is both a moving literary achievement and an historical work of enduring importance. Other books received serious consideration from the jury and should be noted: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed...; Francis Jennings, The Invasion of America...', Ernest May, The Making of the Monroe Doctrine...; W. Averell Harriman and Elie Abel, Special Envoy to Churchill and Stalin...; Richard Kohn, Eagle and Sword."131 The Advisory Board found no reason to dispute the decision to award the prize to Paul Horgan.132 The jury members of 1977 also were in the comfortable position of being able to present a clear favorite for the award. They unanimously voted that the Pulitzer Prize should "be awarded to The Impending Crisis, by David M. Potter. Although we 126 127 128 129 130 131 132

History Jury Report, January 3, 1974, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59. History Jury Report, December 28, 1974, pp. 1 f. Additional proposal of the History Jury Report, December 28,1974, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59. History Jury Report, January 22, 1976, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59.

321 disagreed on a rank-ordering of runners-up," the jury report continues, "we agreed in ranking The Impending Crisis as number one. This is so superior a book that it would rank high in a competition among Pulitzer Prize winners over the years." Further books being in the closer choice were: Herbert Gutman's The Black Family, Lester Cappon's Atlas of American History, Irving Howe's World of our Father's, Richard Kluger's Simple Justice, Henry May's The Enlightenment in America, James McPherson's Abolitionist Legacy and Joseph Lash's Roosevelt and Churchill.1^ The Advisory Board, however, kept to the jury's first-ranked proposal and awarded the Pulitzer Prize posthumously to David M. Potter; Don E. Fehrenbacher had completed the manuscript.134 No less than one hundred and thirty-five titles were to be assessed by the jury in 1978. Despite the high number of entries there was only one book seriously discussed in the report. "The jury unanimously recommends," it says in the text, "that the... Pulitzer Prize in History be awarded to The Visible Hand - The Managerial Revolution in American Business, by Alfred D. Chandler Jr. All... members agree that this is a distinguished book, a work of enormous scholarship, which is likely to have a broad and lasting impact..., one of those very rare books that is at once a broad synthesis of an enormous literature... and also a highly original interpretation..."135 The Advisory Board accepted this unanimous proposal and named Alfred D. Chandler Jr. the Pulitzer Prize winner.13^ The jurors in 1979 again presented a list of three titles, ranked as follows: "1. Anthony F. C. Wallace, Rockdale; 2. Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case; 3. Philip Greven, The Protestant Temperament... We placed Rockdale first... because it is a remarkably original and successful example of an interdisciplinary approach to local history... We considered The Dred Scott Case a truly superior and thorough monograph of major importance... It will undoubtedly remain the definitive book on the subject... We were all impressed by Greven, The Protestant Temperament, which seeks to revise many currently held views of intellectual history in colonial America."137 The Pulitzer Prize Board, as the former Advisory Board was now called, did not accept the first book on the list, awarding the prize instead to Don E. Fehrenbacher,138 who already had helped to bring a Pulitzer Prize to David M. Potter two years before. The jury in 1980 agreed on a list consisting of three titles, which were presented "in alphabetical not rank order" as follows: Leon F. Litwack, Been in the Storm So Long; Gary B. Nash, The Urban Crucible; John D. Unruh, The Plains Across. "Each book," the jury report stresses, "is an outstanding contribution to the field of American history, and each will remain of lasting significance... Leon F. Litwack's... book is a pleasure to read and is perhaps all the more powerful in its effect... Gary B. Nash's... book is vigorously written as befits a reinterpretation. John D. Unruh's... (book is) a work of magisterial comprehensiveness and penetrating insights..."139 The Board preferred Litwack's book and awarded him with the Pulitzer Prize.140 The jurors in 1981 again selected three titles and presented them in the following alphabetical order: Lawrence A. Cremin, American Education - The National Experience, 1783-1876; David Kennedy, Over Here - The First World War and American Society; 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140

History Jury Report, December 23,1976, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. clt., p. 59. History Jury Report, December 30, 1977, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59. History Jury Report, December 12,1978, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59. History Jury Report, December 26, 1979, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59.

322 Lyle Koehler, A Search for Power - the 'weaker sex' in Seventeenth Century New England. "Though we were requested to submit the nominations in alphabetical order," one can read in the jury report, "we feel obliged to say that the book by Lawrence A. Cremin, in our view, ranks substantially above the others."141 This hint was accepted by the Pulitzer Prize Board, who awarded the prize for history to Lawrence A. Cremin.142 The following list of three titles was set up by the jurors in 1982 - again in alphabetical order of the names: George Frederickson, White Supremacy; Akira Iriye, Power and Culture; C. Vann Woodward, Mary Chesnut's Civil War. The report states with respect to the rank order of these three titles proposed by the jury: "la. C. V. Woodward, Mary Chesnut's Civil War. One of the only two outstanding books among the entire group... It is a special work. The jury believes the book fully merits a Pulitzer Prize... Ib. George Frederickson, White Supremacy. The other of the only two outstanding books among the entire group. It is a work of impeccable scholarship and historical imagination. Provocative in its judgments, it provides a remarkable tour de force of comparative analysis and illuminates the histories of both American and South African societies. 3. Akira Iriye, Power and Culture. This book is well below the other two. At the same time, it is a work of impressive research and intellectual significance..."143 The Pulitzer Prize Board awarded the history prize to C. Vann Woodward for his book Mary Chesnut's Civil War.144 No problems arose when awarding the Pulitzer History Prize in 1983. An entirely new jury put their proposal to the Board with the following alphabetical list of authors and titles: Rhys Isaac, The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790; Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause - The American Revolution, 1763-1789; Bertram Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honor - Ethics and Behavior in the Old South. "We wish only to state," the jurors wrote to the Pulitzer Prize Board, "that in literary excellence, we find Rhys Isaac's The Transformation of Virginia and Robert Middlekauff s The Glorious Cause to be superior to Bertram Wyatt-Brown's Southern Honor. But the scholarly importance and imaginative qualities of Southern Honor we deemed sufficient to merit a nomination."145 The Pulitzer Prize Board was in favour of Rhys L. Isaac and awarded him with the Prize for history.146 In 1984 when a slightly different jury from the former one was in office, the jury report begins: "It was clear at the start that 1983 was not a strong year for history and that there would be difficulty selecting a volume sufficiently distinguished to merit this national award," and continues: "One member of the Jury thought well of Dewey W. Grantham's Southern Progressivism... Another book that was discussed in some detail was John L. Thomas's Alternative America... The third book discussed (was) John M. Cooper Jr.'s The Warrior and the Priesi... The Jury feels that none of the books are major works... The Jury cannot, therefore, recommend to the Pulitzer Board any of the volumes received for the award in history."147 The Board accepted this vote and decided for the first time since 1919 that "no award" should be given in the history category.148 Selecting from a total of eighty-three entries, the 1985 jury considered three titles to be worthy of a Pulitzer Prize, namely: "(1) Thomas K. McCraw, Prophets of Regulation 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148

History Jury Report, December 11,1980, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59. History Jury Report, December 7, 1981, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59. History Jury Report, December 30,1982, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59. History Jury Report, January 10,1984, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59.

323 - Charles Francis Adams, Louis D. Brandeis, James M. Landis, and Alfred E. Kahn... is an extraordinary book of outstanding merit... (2) Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father - The United States Government and the American Indians... is a work of great erudition, based on exhaustive research... (3) Joel Williamson, The Crucible of Race - Black-White Relations in the American South Since Emancipation... deals with a fascinating topic of broad general interest and of great historical significance... Though we have reservations about two of these books, we feel that any one of them is worthy of a Pulitzer Prize."149 The Board favoured the first-ranked title and awarded Thomas K. McCraw with the Pulitzer Prize.150 In 1986 the history jury named four finalists in the report which starts with this reservation: "The two following books... have been approved by all three members of the History Jury: Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum - The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution...; Walter A. McDougall,... the Heavens and the Earth - A Political History of the Space Age... The following book... (has) been approved by two members of the History Jury...: Kerby A. Miller, Emigrants and Exiles - Ireland and the Irish Exodus to North America." Dissenting from the two other jurors a minority report added the following book by Jacqueline Jones: Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow - Black Women.151 The Board voted for Walter A. McDougall who, as a consequence, received the Pulitzer Prize for history.152 Although the jurors in the year 1987 agreed on a list consisting of three names, they ordered the titles according to their preferences rather than alphabetically: 1. Bearing the Cross, by David J. Garrow; 2. Voyagers to the West, by Bernard Bailyn; 3. Eisenhower at War, by David Eisenhower. Garrow's book that dealt with Martin Luther King Jr. was appreciated properly in the jury report as a "vivid portrait of the complex relationship between the man and the movement he came to symbolize... Voyagers to the West is a masterful study of eighteenth-century British immigration to British North America... The ultimate achievement of David Eisenhower is a meticulous reconstruction of the day to day operations that his grandfather faced."153 The Board decided to award the secondranked proposal, namely Bernard Bailyn, who had already won a Pulitzer Prize in the history category in 1968.154 The 1988 jury again presented a list in alphabetical order in which they put forward: "Robert Bruce, The Launching of Modem American Science', David Montgomery, The Fall of the House Labor; Charles Rosenberg, The Care of Strangers... Bruce is particularly skilled at presenting scientific thought clearly and elucidating the complex connections between science and society... Montgomery's book... is a thorough, detailed and painstaking empirical presentation of labor's situation... Rosenberg presents an extremely valuable insight into the history of American society..."155 The members of the Pulitzer Prize Board were in favor of Robert V. Bruce and named him the Pulitzer Prize winner for history.15^ When the jurors in 1989 had to evaluate nearly eighty entries, they selected the following four "strongest candidates for the prize...: (1) Taylor Branch, Parting the Waters 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156

History Jury Report, December 30, 1984, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 59. History Jury Report, undated (December 1985), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59. History Jury Report, December 24, 1986, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59. History Jury Report, December 28,1987, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59.

324 -America in the King Years, 1954-63,... is the fullest and most revealing account ever written of the struggle for black equality... (2) Eric Foner, Reconstruction - America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,... is a beautifully crafted history of an important and neglected period... (3) James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom - The Civil War Era,... will without doubt be the standard work in its field for the coming generation... (4) Neil Sheehan, A Bright Shining Lie - John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam,... is the most brilliantly written (book) of the four volumes we have recommended."157 The high quality of all four books was also appreciated by the Board which - for the first time in the history of Pulitzer Prizes in this category - awarded two books at the same time, namely the works of Taylor Branch and James M. McPherson.158 In 1990 the jury again named three finalists in alphabetical order: "Hugh Honour, The Image of the Black in Western Art, Volume 4, Parts I and II: From the American Revolution to World War I... This is a work of extraordinary sweep and originality, illuminating white attitudes toward blacks... Thomas P. Hughes, American Genesis - A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, 1870-1970... This is a thoughtful book that examines in depth the ways in which the United States rose to world technological dominance... Stanley Karnow, In Our Image - America's Empire in the Philippines... Few historians in the West have written about the involvement of the United States in Southeast Asia with the skill, insight, and balance of Stanley Karnow... That masterful rendering of the tragic and the absurd in American efforts at colonization and Filipino strivings toward independence merits the honor of the Pulitzer Prize in History."159 Also from the Pulitzer Prize Board's point of view the latter-named book was the most brilliant, thus Stanley Kamow was awarded the much-coveted prize.160 The jurors in 1991 agreed on a proposal that consisted of four finalists: Lizabeth Cohen, Making a New Deal - Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1939', Hugh Davis Graham, The Civil Rights Era - Origins and Development of National Policy; Kenneth M. Stampp, America in 1857 - A Nation on the Brink; Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, A Midwife's Tale - The Life of Martha Bollard, Based on Her Diary, 1785-1812. "Although we have listed our choices in alphabetical order," the report states, "the jury was unanimous in favor of including the Cohen and Stampp volumes. We also felt that we should submit the Graham and Ulrich books since a majority of the committee favored each."161 The Pulitzer Prize Board's decision was to confer the award to Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's A Midwife's Tale.162 In 1992 the jury members agreed that five books were worthy of final consideration, they were: Nature's Metropolis by William Cronon, A Very Thin Line by Theodore Draper, Profits in the Wilderness by John Frederick Martin, The Fate of Liberty Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties by Mark Neely, and The Middle Ground by Richard White. "These five books," the jurors said, "in social history, contemporary history, colonial history, Civil War history, and the history of race relations" are all respectable works. But since the Board asked for three finalists only, the jurors reduced the list to Draper, A Very Thin Line; Neely, The Fate of Liberty; and White, The Middle

157 158 159 160 161 162

History Jury Report, December 20,1988, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cif., p. 59. History Jury Report, undated (January 1990), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59. History Jury Report, December 29,1990, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 59.

325 Ground.^ The Pulitzer Prize in the history category went to Mark E. Neely Jr. for his book The Fate of'Liberty.164 The jurors of 1993, after reading through ninety-five books submitted, had a split decision. "Two of us," the report states, "are agreed on Edward Ayers1 The Promise of the New South, Roy Rosenzweig and Elizabeth Blackmar's The Park and the People, and Gordon Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution. A third member agrees that these three books are worthy but wishes also to nominate Garry Wills' Lincoln at Gettysburg and Telford Taylor's The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials." The committee majority's reasons for its nominations were as follows: "1. We think... The Promise of the New South is by far the most brilliantly written and researched book of those we have read... 2. The majority also was equally impressed by... The Park and the People. This is the first complete history of Central Park... 3. The majority also felt very strongly that... The Radicalism of the American Revolution was a masterful work."165 The Board did not accept the jury's favorite and bestowed the award on Gordon S. Wood and his book The Radicalism of the American Revolution.^ In 1994 the jurors did not have any dissent by nominating three finalists, they were in alphabetical order by names: Lawrence M. Friedman's Crime and Punishment in American History. The jurors found it as "a book of and for our time, giving more extensive consideration to the places of women and racial minorities in the criminal justice system than would or could have been done a generation ago." Next on the list was Gerald Posner's work Case Closed - Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK. "In a field thickly inhabited by polemicists, conspiracy theorists, and fabulists," the jurors said, "Posner stands out for the diligence of his research and the analytic objectivity of his argument... Case Closed is an ambitious and largely successful accomplishment, written in clear, highly accessible prose." The third finalist was Joel Williamson for his work William Faulkner and Southern History. "We would have been hard pressed to agree on candidates beyond these three," the jurors remarked.167 The Board did not accept any of the three finalists and gave "no award" in this category.168 The jurors of 1995 unanimously agreed to nominate the following three books, listed alphabetically by author: 1. James Goodman, Stories of Scottsboro. In this work, the jurors stated, the author "has offered a brilliant reconstruction of one of the most celebrated civil rights cases of the early twentieth century... One rarely sees a work of professional scholarship which is so well written, or a book by a first-time author which achieves its literary effects so gratefully." 2. Doris Kearns Goodwin, No Ordinary Time Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. "Written with verve and elegance," the jurors said, "No Ordinary Time is a magisterial history that uses its voluminous sources brilliantly to portray a nation and its leaders at the most significant juncture of modern times." 3. Merrill D. Peterson, Lincoln in American Memory. The author, as the jurors expressed, "has mastered all these different stories and with sensitivity and wit has put together a remarkably readable account of Lincoln's changing image in American culture."169 The Pulitzer

163 164 165 166 167 168 169

History Jury Report, December 31, 1991, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1992, p. 6. History Jury Report, December 21,1992, p. 1. Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 13, 1993, p. 6. History Jury Report, December 30,1993, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12,1994, p. 6. History Jury Report, December 23, 1994, pp. 1 ff.

326 Prize Board voted in favor of No Ordinary Time and made Doris Kearns Goodwin the winner.170 The history jurors of 1996 examined about one hundred titles. The committee, according to its report, "was unanimous in recommending two titles as eminently worthy of a Pulitzer Prize in history, but we disagreed in our choice of a third." Lance Banning's book The Sacred Fire of Liberty - James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic was called a "powerful book... Written with controlled eloquence and based on superb scholarship, this is one of the most distinguished book in American political thought that has been published in the past decade." Alan Taylor's William Cooper's Town - Power and Persuasion on the Frontier of the Early American Republic was praised by the jurors as "the outstanding book submitted in the History category this year..., a great book, and we cannot recommend it too highly." There were different opinions about the third book, Dark Sun - The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes. Instead, one of the jurors recommended Alan Brinkley's The End of Reform - New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War.171 For the Board it was clear that the prize should go to William Cooper's Town by Alan Taylor.172 In 1997 the finalists, approved by all three jurors, were as follows: The Battle for Christmas by Stephen Nissenbaum was, in the eyes of the jury, "elegantly written and beautifully argued," a "cultural history at its best, filled with fresh insights into the way we all live our lives." Mary Beth Norton's book Founding Mothers and Fathers Gendered Power and the Forming of American Society followed next on the jury's shortlist. "This is a breakthrough book in colonial history," the report states, "one that will be read and enjoyed by scholars as well as the general public." Finally, Jack N. Rakove's work Original Meanings - Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution was mentioned. It was praised as "an important work of constitutional history - and a fairminded corrective for originalists and advocates of a living Constitution alike."173 This book impressed the Board members most, and the Pulitzer Prize went to Jack N. Rakove.174 The jurors of 1998 expressed that this year's Pulitzer competition consisted of "many good books" in this award category, and they selected the following three: Edward J. Larson, Summer for the Gods; J. Anthony Lukas, Big Trouble; and Rogers M. Smith, Civic Ideals. Larson in his work, according to the jury, "returns readers to the most celebrated scene in American legal history..., the Scopes Trial of 1925... In its interplay between past and present, Summer for the Gods is an exemplary and timely work of American history." Big Trouble, the jury said, "is filled with powerful institutions, courts, banks, unions, railroads, political parties, settlement houses, libraries, newspapers, regiments, corporations, and detective agencies, but it is also laced with compelling biographies." Rogers Smith's book, as the jurors said, "represents the broad sweep of history, and the insight into an issue of timeless importance, that set a few books aside as truly distinguished. It is a book that will last."17^ Despite of the praise for this work, the

170 171 172 173 174 175

Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 18,1995, p. 7. History Jury Report, December 29,1995, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 9,1996, p. 7. History Jury Report, January 2,1997, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1997, p. 6. History Jury Report, January 5,1998, pp. 1 ff.

327 Board gave the award to Edward J. Larson's Summer for the Gods - The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion.™ In 1999 the jury selected these three finalists: Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace, Gotham-A History of New York City to 1898; William E. Burrows, This New Ocean The Story of the First Space Age; and Paula Mitchell Marks, In A Barren Land - American Indian Dispossession and Survival. The Board selected Gotham as the winning book and so the award went to Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace.177 The jurors of 2000 had no problems to filter out the following three works for their shortlist: Freedom from Fear - The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945, by David M. Kennedy; Into the American Woods - Negotiators of the Pennsylvania Frontier, by James H. Merrell; and The Cousins' Wars - Religion, Politics, and the Triumph of Anglo-America, by Kevin Phillips. The book Freedom From Fear impressed the Pulitzer Prize Board most and the award was bestowed on David M. Kennedy.178 This is the end of the line so far, but Pulitzer History Prizes may be awarded as long as American authors reflect on their past.

12.2

Biography I Autobiography Award

Right from the beginning beside of the Pulitzer Prize for American History, another historical-oriented award category was designed for books with biographical or autobiographical content respectively.179 The exact original description of the prize was formulated as follows: "For the best American biography teaching patriotic and unselfish service to the people, illustrated by an eminent example, excluding as too obvious the names of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln."180 On the rank of this award category John Hohenberg makes the following remark: "The vogue for biography in the United States, at the time the Pulitzer Prizes were inaugurated, was even greater than the urge to find different approaches to American History. The American public fairly reveled in highly personal books about the great and the near-great and rewarded the irreverent authors with both wealth and heady praise."181 The jurors, like those in history, came to biography from a wide range of activities.182 "Although historians liked to think of biography as their particular province," Hohenberg states fundamentally, "none of the winners in the formative years of the Pulitzer Prizes was a professional historian."183 When in the year 1917 three jurors awarded the first Pulitzer Prize in the biography category to the book about lyricist Julia Ward Howe, the honored authors were her daughters Laura E. Richards, Maud Howe Elliott and Florence Howe Hall,184 who, in Hohenberg's words, gave to the volume "a symbolic martial touch."185 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185

Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York. April 14, 1998, p. 6. Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1999, p. 6. Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 10,2000, p. 6. Cf. Heinz-D. Fischer/Erika J. Fischer (Eds.), The Pulitzer Prize Archive, Vol. 8: Biography/Autobiography Awards 1917-1992, Munich - New Providence - London - Paris 1995, pp. LXX + 406 pp. Quoted from De Forest O'Dell, The History of Journalism Education in the United States, New York 1935, p. 109. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 65. Ibid.,p.66. Ibid., p. 67. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 31.

328 In 1918 when the same jurors had to pass judgment on the submissions in the biography category, they first of all faced a basic problem. The jury members had to answer the question, "whether the biographies of men not born in this country were eligible under the terms of the endowment. It is our opinion," the jury report continues, "that such biographies are eligible, if the distinctive work of the men was done in this country in such a manner that they are naturally thought of as Americans. In other words the phrase 'American biography' does not necessarily imply Americans in it's sense of being born in America."186 After presenting these fundamental reflections on how the definition of the prize in the biography category ought to be interpreted, the jurors offered an evaluation of the books at hand, according to which "the committee is unanimous in deciding that the Pulitzer Prize for Biography should be awarded to Benjamin Franklin, Self-Revealed, by W. C. Bruce."187 Not only the Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes but also the Trustees of Columbia University, who as the second authority had to sanction the decisions of the jury, followed suit on it's suggestion and gave the biography prize to William Cabell Bruce, an ex-senator from Maryland.188 The jury of 1919 came "easily to the unanimous decision that the Pulitzer Prize this year for biography should go to The Education of Henry Adams.,"189 The book in question was an autobiographical work that ended up winning the award.19^ "Henry Adams," Hohenberg writes, "never considered himself a professional historian and he had no intention, when he began his Education, of writing a mere autobiography. He once called the book 'an incomplete experience which I shall never finish.' Had he known his book would be cited as an example of 'patriotic and unselfish services to the people,' he would have been embarrassed. But he never lived to receive his Pulitzer Prize. By birth, education, appearance and temperament, Henry Adams was an aristocrat and made no apologies for it. He was... the great grandson of president John Adams, the grandson of President John Quincy Adams, and the son of Charles Francis Adams, minister to the Court of St. James's... His nine-volume History of the United States During the Administration of Jefferson and Madison, (1889-1891), became a classic."191 The jurors of 1920 "decided unanimously that the award... should be given to The Life of John Marshall, by Albert J. Beveridge,"192 and this decision was also accepted by the two other committees that figured in the awarding of the Pulitzer Prizes.193 More difficulties arose in 1921, when a jury could not at first work up unreserved enthusiasm for any of the biographical works at hand, so that the chairman of the jury wrote in his report that "none of the four volumes of biography offered is, considering the quality of the books which have hitherto gained the prize, worthy of so distinguished an honor as the Pulitzer reward."194 The heads of Columbia University disclosed thereupon, "that the Advisory Board will be disappointed to have no recommendation for the award of the biography prize... The jury is not restricted in its consideration to the books that are submitted. The juries are at liberty to initiate suggestions of their own regardless

186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194

Biography Jury Report, April 26, 1918, pp. 1 f. Ibid, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66. Biography Jury Report, February 8, 1919, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 67 f. Biography Jury Report, March 7,1920, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Biography Jury Report, April 25,1921, p. 1.

329 of the nominations by other people."195 After that the jury reconsidered and finally voted "for Mr. Bok's book."196 This proposal proved acceptable, and so the biography award of 1921 was given to the autobiographical work The Americanization of Edward Bok, by Edward Bok.197 There were new jurors on the jury appointed for 1922, who arrived at the following decision: They reported that the members of the "committee have unanimously voted the prize... to The Daughter of the Middle Border, by Hamlin Garland."19** Because neither Pulitzer Board nor Trustees had any objections to this suggestion, the prize for best biography went to the author and critic Hamlin Garland.199 In 1923 when the same jurors held office, there were also no problems with the evaluation of the exhibits at hand. "I have the honor to report as Chairman of the Pulitzer Prize Committee for Biography under the auspices of Columbia University," a juror wrote, "that both of my colleagues... are in accordance with me in the opinion that the Life and Letters of Walter H. Page is the best biography printed during the year 1922, and, therefore, deserves to be crowned by Columbia and the Pulitzer Foundation. "20° The other committees for the Pulitzer Prize shared the jury's opinion and bestowed the biography prize on the author of said book, Burton J. Hendrick.201 The biography jury of 1924 struggled comparatively hard to determine a favorite for that year's Pulitzer Prize. One juror said about the biographies that were submitted to the jury, that "none seems to me very good," he found "the autobiographies... much more interesting," stating in more concrete terms: "Of these I think Pupin is much the best, and I cast my vote for him."202 A second juror suggested among other things in his judgment on the books at hand: "I can't tell you how strongly I feel about Pupin. There is a first rate example of Americanism, of the Americanizing process, of a man getting thoroughly adjusted to the genius of the country and paying back a debt, so to say, by putting it all on record. It is well written and interesting. It seems to me to fit our bill completely as a bit of American achievement, both in living the life and in recording it."203 The Chairman of the Biography Jury on the other hand declared: "I feel that Pupin is the second best... but I feel strongly enough about the excellence of the Pupin book to enter no protest."204 The book in question was the autobiography From Immigrant to Inventor, by Michael Idvorsky Pupin, a physicist who had emigrated to the USA and was teaching at Columbia University.205 Although the vote of the jury was not unanimous, the Advisory Board und the Trustees of Columbia University agreed that the biography-prize should be given to M. I. Pupin.206 In 1925 the jurors arrived yet again at a unanimous vote, and this time they also explained the criteria that had led to their decision. "We have interpreted the test as involving also the question of literary craftsmanship," the report reveals, "seeking the book not only sufficient in its subject but adequate as a work of art. We have looked for 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206

Letter to Maurice Francis Egan, April 27, 1921, p. 1. Letter to Frank D. Fackenthal, May 5, 1921, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Biography Jury Report, March 24, 1922, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Biography Jury Report, March 29, 1923, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Letter to William Allan White, March 17, 1924, pp. 1 f. Letter to William Allen White, February 25, 1924, p. 1. Letter to Frank D. Fackenthal, Secretary of Columbia University, March 21, 1924, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 115. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60.

330 the writer proficient in composition, in proportion, in condensation, in omission, in narrative form, in anecdote and in handling the English language. Our unanimous choice for the prize is Barrett Wendell and His Letters, by M. A. DeWolfe Howe. Wendell was not a great man, he represented things that were greater than himself, but he represented them effectively, helpfully. In a materialistic generation he believed in the ideals of truth and beauty and goodness and steadily pursued them. He was a good teacher, an unusual inspirer of the feeling for good literature, and he knew how to write. As an educator he exercised a lasting influence... The task of writing his life was not an easy one. The art of selecting, cutting and combining letters into a steady sequence of biographical story is difficult. Mr. Howe has accomplished this admirably, with fine editorial taste and skill, the touch of a literary artist."207 There was no objection to this unanimous vote, and so the Pulitzer Prize went to M. A. DeWolfe Howe.208 The jurors of 1926 also all favored the same author. "For the Pulitzer Prize for biography this year I should unhesitatingly choose the Life of William Osier, by Dr. Harvey Gushing of Boston. It seems to me to stand far above any other recent work of the kind,"209 as deemed one member of the jury. "Dr. Cushing's book," another juror wrote, "is of a distinctive high quality, worthy of comparison, in my opinion, with the great biographies of recent times. Osier himself was a man who represented the best kind of personal achievement, born in the ranks of moderate circumstances, with an ideal of the highest intellectual career, and essentially a man who sought to serve humanity in his efforts. By his side the striving upward of a mere politician or a popular writer of fiction seems small. I hope we may be able to give to him and his standards the approval of this prize."210 And the chairman of the jury for his part added to what already had been said, "that Cushing's book exactly fulfills my idea of what the prize is for, that is a work that stands out from the ruck, that treats the fine subject on high grounds, that promises to remain of widely recognized permanent value."211 Because of this unanimous vote the Pulitzer Prize was awarded to Harvey Gushing.212 Although the jurors of the awarding year of 1927 finally agreed upon a unanimous vote, they found it difficult to arrive at a decision at first. "There is no outstanding or distinguished biography at all comparable with Dr. Cushing's Life of Sir William Osier," one juror complained with regard to the winner of the previous year and continued: "I have had some doubt whether there were any books in the list of this year that were really worthy of the Pulitzer Prize, and I have had moments when I thought of suggesting that the prize be withheld entirely... Two books only seem to impress me as possibilities. I think the book that gave me personally the greatest satisfaction was Commander Green's Peary... The other book which I also liked is Emory Holloway's Whitman. It is a sincere though not a great piece of work."213 Another juror also seemed to be insecure but in the end was "prepared to go on record as favoring Whitman."214 And the chairman of the jury admitted in his final report: "We have all been entertaining the same idea, that we might possibly have to declare no award. The books submitted, and those explored in addition, have proved on the whole of doubtful value. The mass has not hitherto... been 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214

Biography Jury Report, March 21, 1925, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Letter to Royal Cortissoz, March 13, 1926, p. 1. Letter to Royal Cortissoz, March 22, 1926, p. 1. Biography Jury Report, March 29, 1926, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Letter to Royal Cortissoz, March 7, 1927, pp. 1, 3 f. Letter to Royal Cortissoz, March 8, 1927, p. 1.

331

quite so uninspiring. But after a good deal of consideration it would seem as if an award might, after all, be made, going to Emory Holloway's Whitman..."2^ This is how the Pulitzer Prize for biography went to Holloway's book on Whitman.216 In 1928 the awarding of the prize caused not the slightest problem. The jurors stated in their report, "that our unanimous choice for the prize is The American Orchestra and Theodore Thomas, by C. E. Russell. This selection is based upon the value of the book as an adequate record of a life full of service to the United States... Mr. Russell has rendered justice to it in a well-documented, well-organized work and has altogether brought his book decisively closer to the terms of the award than has any of his competitors."217 Because of these enthusiastic hymns of praise the prize was given without contradiction to Charles Edward Russell.218 In the year of 1929, when the same jurors had to decide in the biography category, there was also a strong agreement as to who should win. "We have unanimously chosen as the best work presented," the jury report indicates, "The Training of an American The Earlier Life and Letters of Walter H. Page, by Burton J. Hendrick... This book seems to be the best of them all. It is a genial, inspiring record, and has an epical character in that the hero is a representative man, representative of the New South and of a new spirit in international affairs... Page's record as a man, as an editor and as a figure in public affairs is from beginning to end inspiring as exemplifying a high type of Americanism and Mr. Hendrick has dealt with the subject in a workmanlike, interesting manner."219 When the award was adjudicated to Burton J. Hendrick220 it was already his second Pulitzer Prize - six years after the first one. The jury that was appointed in 1930 was marginally new and had to check the prizeworthiness of no less than 43 biographies and autobiographies respectively. In their report the jurors stressed, "that there is one book which we all find worthy of the prize, The Raven, a biography of Sam Houston."221 The author of the recommended volume, Marquis James was honored by the committees of the Columbia University with the Pulitzer Prize.222 In 1931 when the same members of the jury officiated in the biography category, they had to cope with nearly sixty submissions. "In spite of the merits of more than one candidate," the jury report recorded, "we are unanimous in our selection of the winning book. This is Charles W. Eliot of Henry James. The subject is one of high significance in our field, the achievements of an outstanding American and their influence upon American life. Mr. James has splendidly risen to that subject. His book is thoroughly well written, constituting a living portrait... This is the book of the year... Without hesitation we recommend Mr. James's book for the prize."223 There were no objections, and so the Pulitzer Prize was given to Henry James.224 In 1932 the same jurors as in the preceding two years stayed in office to evaluate the submissions in the biography category. "Our unanimous choice for the prize," their re215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224

Biography Jury Report, March 11,1927, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Biography Jury Report, March 20, 1928, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 115. Biography Jury Report, March 15,1929, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Biography Jury Report, March 10,1930, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Biography Jury Report, February 28,1931, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60.

332 port says, "is Theodore Roosevelt, by Henry F. Pringle. The net result of our consultation is that this is a vitalized portrait of an outstanding American, that it seeks to strike a fair balance where that - in a time so near to the subject - is difficult to achieve, that it is well documented and well written... We cordially commend it for the prize."225 The Advisory Board as well as the Trustees endorsed this opinion and honored Henry F. Pringle with the Pulitzer Prize.226 In 1933 once again the same individuals were selected as members of the jury, but this time they could not reach a unanimous vote concerning the first place. Whereas the chairman of the jury pleaded for the volume Graver Cleveland by Allan Nevins and praised this piece of work as "a book of value, in the first place, because it supplies what has been needed, a dispassionate and comprehensive survey of the subject,"227 another member of the jury recommended the author as "an excellent historian, with plenty of literary flavor, complete command of the material, and, especially, with fair-minded, comprehensive survey of the questions involved."228 In contrast to this a third juror judged the book about Grover Cleveland to be "not inspiring or thrilling and not likely to interest persons who do not remember the events and figures of the 1880's and 1890's... The book is like the subject, sound and admirable, though not fascinating."229 In spite of these reservations of the third member of the jury Allan Nevins won the Pulitzer Prize for biography.2·'0 In 1934 with the jurors of the previous year once more performing the duties of the jury, once again a consensus of opinion was reached: "John Hay, by Tyler Dennett,... is the unanimous choice of the jury for the award. Hay, through his character and his career," the jury-report continues, "is precisely such an 'eminent example' as the conditions require. A brilliant man, of high integrity, he lived a life full of public service. Mr. Dennett, though not a stylist like Hay himself, has produced a well-written biography, and, what is more, it is candid, justly poised... It promises to stand as the authoritative source for the subject and as a contribution to American biography (it) deserves cordial recognition."231 This laudation was so convincing that the Pulitzer Prize was awarded to Tyler Dennett.232 In 1935 a slightly different jury was appointed nevertheless arriving at a unanimous vote for first-place as well: "R. E. Lee, by Douglas S. Freeman. This is unquestionably the outstanding biography of the year," the jury-report reads. "It is exhaustive in research (the book runs to four volumes) and it portrays a figure of national import sympathetically but without prejudice. It does justice to the man and the soldier and without being brilliant in style it is clear and workmanlike in execution. Altogether Lee's best literary monument."233 The authorities at Columbia University who awarded the prize raised no objections and selected Douglas S. Freeman as Pulitzer Prize-winner in the biography category.23^

225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234

Biography Jury Report, March 14, 1932, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Biography Jury Report, March 11, 1933, p. 2. Ibid. Ibid., p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Biography Jury Report, March 5,1934, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Biography Jury Report, February 23, 1935, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60.

333 In the awarding year of 1936, the jurors stated at the beginning of their report: "We clearly understand that these notes are made simply as aids to the Advisory Board. Nevertheless we deem it our duty to express our opinion with peculiar emphasis as to the book placed at the head of the list: The Thought and Character of William James, by Ralph Barton Perry. It is the unanimous conclusion of the jury that this book has quite unusual merits, and quite unusual claims to the award. It deals with a distinguished American who was a positive force in our educational and philosophical development. It deals with him at full length and the author's grasp upon his subject is strengthened by his use of many previously unpublished letters. He treats James and his times, and his kinsfolk with sympathy and authority - and usefully. Studying the man he studies also his thought, painting a revealing portrait and writing altogether one of the most valuable studies of American intellectual life we have. Finally Perry has acquitted himself of his task with the touch of a scholar and a man of letters. He has produced what is by all odds the best biography" of the year before.235 The Advisory Board was of the same opinion and conferred the Pulitzer Prize on Ralph B. Perry.236 In 1937 the same jurors as in the two preceding years were entrusted with selecting and judging the submitted entries. Although a basic agreement was reached, the chairman of the jury nonetheless deemed it appropriate to report the individual opinions on the favored book in detail: "Hamilton Fish - The Inner History of the Grant Administration, by Allan Kevins. This is a really remarkable work both as biography and as history. It is minutely exhaustive and it is very understanding. It renders a positive service to the literature of the period." One juror found "it 'mighty well done1 and 'trustworthy,'" another called it "the most solid contribution to biography of the year... It is well written and interesting." The jury chairman added: "I am all for the Fish book because of its power and the author's efficiency throughout and I do not regard the previous award to the same author's Graver Cleveland in 1933 as a bar. In any case I am not sure that this point comes within the jurisdiction of the jury. It is one, perhaps, for the Advisory Board to settle."237 The Board had no objections against this proposal and gave Allan Nevins his second Pulitzer Prize for biography.238 In 1938 the jurors, working together on the biography jury for many years, arrived at the decision of naming two books of nearly equal merit: (1.) Pedlar's Progress - The Life of Branson Alcott, by Odell Shepard. "This book," the report indicates, "has made a most favorable impression upon all... members of the jury. It commemorates a salient figure in an important period of New England's spiritual and intellectual development and it does this in an effective, workman-like manner... The author of this book... has made a really useful contribution to American biographical literature... It is decidedly worthy of the prize." (2.) Andrew Jackson - The Border Captain/Andrew Jackson - Portrait of a President, by Marquis James. "We are all agreed," it is said in the report about this book, "that this is an admirable study of a famous American, well conceived and well executed. On its merits it deserves a prize. The question arises, however, and it is one that may reasonably be called to the attention of the Board, whether it is judicious to give the award, for the second time, to the same author, when other good books are available... There is precedent for repetition of the award and there is no getting away from the fact 235 236 237 238

Biography Jury Report, March 7, 1936, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 60. Biography Jury Report, March 13, 1937, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60.

334 that both as regards subject and treatment the book has a certain major significance. As such... we are unanimously of a friendly opinion - but Pedlar's Progress remains a weighty competitor."239 The uncertainty of the jury as to who finally was deserving of the prize passed on to the Advisory Board, which "obligingly voted two coequal prizes for each book,"240 awarding the prize not only to Odell Shepard but to Marquis James as well, who therewith was honored with a Pulitzer Prize for the second time. The time-tested three jurors of the previous year also formed the jury in the biography category in 1939. According to them the books on the following short list were especially qualified for the award: (1.) Benjamin Franklin, by Carl Van Doren: "To this book the jury as a body would make the award," the report reads. "It is not a masterpiece. It might have been more brilliantly written. But it is well written, well documented, and altogether promises to figure as the standard biography of Franklin. It rises on the whole to the level of its subject and that subject by itself has significance..." (2.) Elihu Root, by Philip C. Jessup, which was described in the jury report "as a good runner up."241 The Advisory Board decided in favor of the Franklin-biography and bestowed the Pulitzer Prize on Carl Van Doren.242 For the jury of 1940 the personnel was slightly changed. As in the previous year two books were found to stand out above all others: (1.) Woodrow Wilson - Life and Letters, by Ray Stannard Baker: "This is only partially represented by vols VII and VIII," the jury report stated. "But it is the unanimous opinion of the jury that these concluding volumes place the capstone upon the monumental work whose merits as a whole demand recognition... It is difficult to see how this work could be allowed to pass without receiving the allocade of the Pulitzer Prize." (2.) Thoreau, by Henry Seidel Canby. "In the absence of the Woodrow Wilson this would strongly recommend itself for the award,"243 the report remarks on the book. The Advisory Board finally chose Ray Stannard Baker's biography of Wilson that comprised several volumes.244 "The yield of biographies... has not been rich," the jurors of 1941 remarked in their report and added: "In fact it makes (for) the poorest showing that we have had to deal with in years. However, at least one book stands head and shoulders above the rest. It is Jonathan Edwards, by Ola Elizabeth Winslow. We are united in regarding this biography as one of exceptional salience... we chiefly associate Edwards with the hellfire tradition of Presbyterianism but he was an important philosopher and a great mind, of deep significance in American History, and Miss Winslow has portrayed him not only with the care of a scholar but with uncommon vividness. The author has a keen sense of personality and she has a good style. Her book is well organized. It sums up Edwards with understanding and skill. In every way it seems the ideal candidate for the award this year."245 Nearly forty biographical and autobiographical books respectively had been submitted for the Pulitzer Prize in this category and although these were also acknowledged in the jury report, the Advisory Board had no reason to question the unanimous vote of the jury, so that the award went to Ola Elizabeth Winslow for her biography of Jonathan Edwards.246 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246

Biography Jury Report, March 7,1938, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 163. Biography Jury Report, February 25,1939, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Biography Jury Report, February 26,1940, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Biography Jury Report, March 8,1941, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60.

335 In 1942 the list of proposals for the award looked like this: (1.) Edgar Allan Poe - A Critical Biography, by Arthur Hobson Quinn: "This is the unanimous first choice of the jury," the report said. "It has its' defects of arrangement and of style. But there can be no question of its containing the fruits of a lifetime of scholarly research; it marshals and analyses all the available facts, and, in short, promises to remain the definitive biography of the poet... (2.) Crusader in Crinoline - The Life of Harriet Beecher Stowe, by Forrest Wilson: A strong rival of the first place, one of the most satisfactory books in the lot. It is equally good in its background and in it's portrayal of Mrs. Stowe, heightening her appeal to American readers. It is a workmanlike and humanly interesting performance. It has permanent value, like Quinn's Poe, but on the whole the jury adheres to the latter as its first choice."247 This time the Advisory Board made use of its fundamental prerogative to inform and orientate itself with help of the jury-reports in order to arrive at its own decision but to ignore these whenever it seems appropriate. That is why the Pulitzer Prize for best biography in 1942 went to Forrest Wilson, who ranked second on the jury's list.248 In 1943 the jury had to pick a wartime laureate in biography. For the first place it decided in favor of the book Admiral of the Ocean Sea - A Life of Christopher Columbus, by Samuel Eliot Morison, adding in the jury-report: "Let it be admitted at the outset that Columbus was not a citizen of the United States. But the terms of the prize specify that it is to be given to 'a distinguished American biography teaching patriotic and unselfish services to the people,' and surely Columbus is thereby made eligible as a subject. After all he invented us, was, in a sense, our only begetter, and that was some service to the people. Furthermore this biography of him we unanimously agree is whole parasangs ahead of everything else submitted. It is the work of a finished scholar who is also a sea-faring man. He has absolutely mastered his subject and has brought to his treatment of it a warm humanizing touch. From under his hands Columbus emerges as not only an historical figure but as a man, is made sympathetic and moving. The book has all the apparatus of scholarship, including, by the way, many extremely pertinent illustrations, and is, besides, excitingly readable. It has had no comparable predecessors and it is unlikely to have any worthy successors. Mr. Morison has done this task superlatively well and the jury unhesitatingly commends his book for the award."249 The Advisory Board accepted this proposition and announced the Columbus-biography by Samuel E. Morison as winner.2^ In 1944 the same biography jury as in the preceding years went at work once again. At the beginning of their report the jurors emphasized "that the books submitted have not been numerically as impressive as on other occasions, nor do they include as many outstanding volumes as in some previous years. However, we have encountered a few excellent contributions... 1. The American Leonardo - A Life of Samuel F. B. Morse, by Carleton Mabee... This is the unanimous choice of the jury for the award. It triumphs over the absurdity of the first part of its title. To bracket Morse and Leonardo is to bring up an impossible association of ideas. But having got past his title Mr. Mabee writes an altogether good book about a man who certainly fits the purpose of the award and whose portrait he paints with remarkable ful(l)ness and success, assembling a great mass of facts, organizing them well and establishing a most persuasive characterization of his 247 248 249 250

Biography Jury Report, February 28, 1942, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 60. Biography Jury Report, March 13,1943, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61.

336 cantankerous but likable subject... 2. Walt Whitman - An American; A Study in Biography, by Henry Seidel Canby. Until the Morse (book) turned up this was the unanimous choice of the jury for the award... The Morse, however, takes precedence as being of admirable character as a biography... and a needed thing."251 The Advisory Board favored the biography of Morse by Carlton Mabee.252 Although the makeup of the jury that was designated for the award in 1945 had not changed, not all of the three jurors could partake in the final stage of reaching the decision. The jury report remarked by way of explanation, that one juror "found it necessary, because of ill health, to resign from the committee... As it was deemed inadvisable to appoint a successor so late in the day, the opinions expressed below are those of the two remaining members. However, we had no difficulty in deciding on the books most worthy of consideration... 1. George Bancroft - Brahmin Rebel, by Rüssel B. Nye. There is complete agreement that this is the best biography of the season. It is by... a young man - thirty-one years old. It is always a satisfaction to give an award to a new writer, but this point need not be over-emphasized in recommending Mr. Nye's book. He has - what so many industrious collectors of material so frequently lack - an easy, rapid biographical style, with a lively feeling for personality, for entertaining incident and picturesque background. It is one of the most readable volumes offered for some time, and it is also dignified and scholarly, a product of several years' research..."253 The Advisory Board did not raise any objections to this proposal nor to the reduced jury and declared Rüssel B. Nye winner of the Pulitzer Prize in the biography category.254 The jurors of 1946 placed first on their list of proposals the book Soldier of Democracy, a biography of Dwight D. Eisenhower, by Kenneth S. Davis, followed by the volume Son of the Wilderness - The Life of John Muir, by Linnie Marsh Wolfe. But "the Advisory Board, for its own reasons, preferred the John Muir story,"255 and so the Pulitzer Prize went to Linnie Marsh Wolfe.256 In the awarding year 1947 there was once more a jury of only two. Its report, however, is considered to be lost, and that is why only the result can be reported: the Pulitzer Prize for best biography was given to The Autobiography of William Allen WAite.257 The distinguished journalist and editor had already won the Pulitzer Prize in the category "Editorial Writing" nearly a quarter of a century earlier.258 For the awards year of 1948 the appointed jury was partially new, and its evaluation was founded "on a point basis:... "Counting five points for a first place, four for a second, three for a third, two for a fourth, and one for a fifth."259 This course of proceeding proved to be suitable as the jurors' opinions concerning the ranking differed considerably. In all, said system of points resulted in the following appraisement: (1.) Thomas Jefferson - American Humanist, by Karl Lehmann, 13 points; (2.) Wilson - The Road to the White House, by Arthur S. Link, 6 points; (3.) Forgotten First Citizen - John Bigelow, by Margaret Clapp, 5 points.260 Although the book by Margaret Clapp ranked 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258

Biography Jury Report, March 11,1944, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit,, p. 61. Biography Jury Report, March 1,1945, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit, p. 219. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. Ibid. Cf. Heinz-D. Fischer/Erika J. Fischer (Eds.), The Pulitzer Prize Archive, Vol. 4: Political Editorial 19161988, Munich - London - New York - Paris 1990, pp. 29 f. 259 Biography Jury Report, March 10, 1948, p. 1. 260 Ibid.

337 first with only one juror, thereby gathering the reported five points, even though the book was not even featured on the short list of the other two members of the jury,261 the Advisory Board bestowed the Pulitzer Prize for biography on the authoress for her study of Bigelow.262 Obviously the following argumentation by the sole member of the jury that pleaded for the book turned out to be very convincing: "This is, I think, the best-rounded of the biographies, and one of the best written. It makes a more skillful use of background than any... It comes closer to what biography ought to be than any other of the entrants."263 The jurors of 1949 were "happy to report a remarkable degree of unanimity among the members... Our first ballot, taken simultaneously and independently by mail, revealed the astonishing fact that each of us for our first four selections had agreed upon the same titles, though not in precisely identical order... Our recommendations for the Pulitzer award in Biography are, in the order given, as follows: 1. Roosevelt and Hopkins - An Intimate History, by Robert Emmet Sherwood; 2. George Washington, vols. I and II, by Douglas Southall Freeman; 3. Jefferson the Virginian, by Dumas Malone; 4. James Madison - The Nationalist 1780-1787, by Irving Brant; 5. The Story of John Hope, by Ridgely Torrence."264 In this case the Advisory Board followed the suggestion of the jury and declared Sherwood winner of the Pulitzer Prize for his biographical work about the cooperation of and the relationship between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his adviser of many years, Harry L. Hopkins.265 This book brought Robert E. Sherwood his only award in the biography category, while being honored with three additional Pulitzer Prizes in the drama category.266 In 1950 the same jury sat as in the previous year. "Our first choice," their report reads, "is Samuel Flagg Bemis' John Quincy Adams and the Foundation of American Foreign Policy; our second choice - and it is a very close second - is Eleanor Roosevelt's This I Remember... The two following books were tied for third place: Dr. Charles M. Wiltse's John C. Calhoun - Nullifier and Perry Miller's Jonathan Edwards."2^ The Advisory Board accepted the author ranking first, which is why the Pulitzer Prize for biography was given to Samuel Flagg Bemis.268 The biography jury of 1951 consisted of merely two people who - without any justification with regards to contents - in their report only named the following four titles, "in the order of preference given...: James Madison - Father of the Constitution, 1787-1800, by Irving Brant; Jane Mecom - Franklin's Favorite Sister, by Carl Van Doren; John C. Calhoun - American Portrait, by Margaret Louise Coit; The Peabody Sisters of Salem, by Louise Hall Tharp."269 As had already happened once in a while in the preceding years, the Advisory Board used its prerogative to form its own evaluation independently on this occasion as well and awarded the Pulitzer Prize for best biography to Margaret Louise Coit,2^ who ranked third on the jury's list of suggestions.

261 Ibid. 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. Biography Jury Report, March 10, 1948, p. 2. Biography Jury Report, March 7,1949, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 152, 351. Biography Jury Report, March 14, 1950, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. Biography Jury Report, March 22, 1951, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61.

338 In 1952 yet again a jury of only two went to work and "decided to recommend... the following biographies in the order named: 1. Merlo J. Pusey, Charles Evans Hughes; 2. Charles M. Wiltse, John C. Calhoun - Sectionalism 1840-1850; 3. Dumas Malone, Jefferson and the Rights of Man; 4. Holman Hamilton, Zachary Taylor - Soldier in the White House; 5. Francis Brown, Raymond of the Times."21! Although further reasons for this choice were not given and a ranking was omitted, the Advisory Board accepted the author who ranked first and honored the book by Merlo J. Pusey with the Pulitzer Prize.272 The same jurors as in the year before also formed the jury in 1953, once again coming to the decision to provide a list of five books as a "recommendation for the Pulitzer award in Biography: 1. David J. Mays, Edmund Pendleton, 1721-1803; 2. Dixon Wecter, Sam Clemens of Hannibal; 3. Zoltan Haraszti, John Adams and the Prophets of Progress; 4. Joseph Barnes, Willkie; 5. Herbert Heaton, A Scholar in Action - Edwin F. Gray." The jurors said in a few explanatory comments to this list, that they "fully agreed in the opinion that Mr. Mays' work is a first rate performance. It represents many years of labor and an extremely careful appraisal of all available sources. It is written in an attractive manner and its subject is a figure of the front rank in a generation of Virginians who emphasized public duty and achieved high distinction in their discharge of it."273 This ought to have convinced the Advisory Board, and so the Pulitzer Prize for biography went to David J. Mays for his study of Pendleton.274 Because the jury report of 1954 reportedly has been lost, only a few comments on the result can be made. As Hohenberg formulated, the Pulitzer award was won by "Charles Lindbergh's story of his 1927 solo flight to Paris, which bore the same name as his little aircraft, The Spirit of St. Louis."215 The two men also performed the duties of the jury in 1955, writing in their report to the Advisory Board that they "have consulted by correspondence and by telephone and have come to the following recommendations... for the Pulitzer Prize in Biography...: First place: Virginia Crocheron Gildersleeve, Many a Good Crusade; Second place: Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington; Third place: Wallace Stegner, Beyond the Hundredth Meridian; Fourth place: Allan Nevins, Ford - The Times, The Man, The Company; Fifth place, the following three: Jacques Barzun, God's Country and Mine; Ellen Glasgow, The Woman Within; Thad Snow, From Missouri."216 Further information about any possible reasons for this selection, however, are not to be found in the report. Obviously this also displeased the Advisory Board, which considered still other candidates and finally found a possible winner: The Board gave the biography-prize to The Taft Story, by William S. White,277 which was not mentioned on the jury report. The jurors of 1956 in their report named the following authors and titles it deemed to be deserving of the award: 1. Talbot Hamlin, Benjamin Latrobe; 2. Gay W. Allen, The Solitary Singer - A Critical Biography of Walt Whitman; 3. Harry S. Truman, Memoirs Vol. 1, The Year of Decisions; 4. Charles A. Baker, Henry George; 5. Van Wyck Brooks, John Sloan - A Painter's Life; 6. Marguerite Courtney, Laurette.21^ "There are several other items in this year's list that we seriously considered as worthy to be ranked among 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278

Biography Jury Report, March 21,1952, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. Biography Jury Report, March 26, 1953, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 218. Biography Jury Report, March 20,1955, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. Biography Jury Report, March 5,1956, p. 1.

339

OFI] %J/JL M±l

cou

sπ

JOHN F.KENNEDY Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography, 1957

340 the top contenders," it reads literally in the jury report, "though the offerings as a whole were not very distinguished... We are in close agreement in our admiration for the works of Professors Hamlin and Allen. Indeed, we think that these biographies are almost if not quite on a par in contending for first place. But we gave the honor to Professor Hamlin's notable study of Latrobe primarily because he pioneered in a way that Professor Allen did not..."279 The Advisory Board was completely convinced by the arguments advanced and honored Talbot Hamlin's biography of Latrobe with the Pulitzer Prize.280 In the awarding year of 1957 the two jurors arrived at these "five recommendations... in the order of preference: 1. Alpheus T. Mason, Harlan Fiske Stone - Pillar of the Law; 2. James McGregor Burns, Roosevelt - The Lion and the Fox; 3. Irving Brant, James Madison - The President, 1809-1812; 4. Samuel F. Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Union; 5. William N. Chambers, Old Bullion Benton. We are emphatically agreed," the jury report continues, "that in subject, in scholarly treatment, and in style, the biography of Chief Justice Stone by Mason is a very distinguished work by one of the leading authorities on American jurisprudence... We are also agreed that Burns' The Lion and the Fox is a brilliant performance, and its literary quality is in our opinion superior to that of Mason's Stone..."^ With these recommendations and further detailed comments the jury report was sent in to the Board where one of its members "was greatly taken with a book that neither of the jurors had mentioned, Profiles in Courage, by John Fitzgerald Kennedy, then a senator from Massachusetts. Kennedy had written the book during a long and painful convalescence after an operation... At first, the discussion of the Biography Jury's report before the Board was aimless... The upshot of the discussion was a majority vote to upset the jury's recommendations and bestow the Prize to Kennedy's book."282 In spite of the experiences they had made in the previous year the two jurors made up the biography jury in 1958 as well. "Although we were fairly well agreed on the topranking candidates," their report explained, "we had some difficulty in arriving at a recommendation for the first place," and so this list of suggestions was put forth: (1) Douglas Southhall Freeman, George Washington, I-VI, completed by John Alexander Carroll and Mary Welles Ashworth, Volume VII; (2) Allan Nevins and Frank Ernest Hill, Ford - Expansion and Challenge, 1915-1933; (3) Raymond Walters Jr., Albert Gallatin - Jeffersonian Financier and Diplomat; (4) Margaret L. Coit, Mr. Baruch; (5) Ola Elizabeth Winslow, Master Roger Williams - A Biography.2^ After appreciating these books in detail, the chairman of the jury added the following remarks: "In light of the decision of the Advisory Board in regard to our recommendations in 1956 and 1957, I cannot conclude without making one further recommendation," which, however, amounted to a great fear, concerning the autobiography of a prominent politician that was not to be found on the jury's list. "Baruch's My Own Story consistently makes the best-seller list week after week... Because of past experience... we feel it necessary to record in advance..., that if Baruch's My Own Story should this year receive the Pulitzer award in Biography, the result will be an affront to scholarship generally, a demeaning of the dignity of the Advisory Board and of this committee, and a mockery of the high purpose 279 280 281 282 283

Ibid., p. 2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 61. Biography Jury Report, February 28,1957, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 270 ff. Biography Jury Report, March 24,1958, pp. 1 f.

341

that Joseph Pulitzer had in view."284 The Advisory Board gave the prize to the book that ranked first on the jury's list, the biography of Washington by Douglas S. Freeman.285 In 1959 a completely new jury took over the task of selecting a winner in the biography category. "Forty-nine candidates were submitted to the prize jury," as can be read in its report, "and a mixed bag they were. Practically every period of American History was covered, from Puritan Massachusetts in the time of John Winthrop to contemporary Alabama as reflected in the autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr. While some of the candidates had very little to recommend them for any award, others were strong contenders for a Pulitzer Prize. The best among them, in the jury's opinion, was and is Arthur Walworth's two-volume biography, Woodrow Wilson... The result is a sympathetic portrayal of the life of Woodrow Wilson and an appraisal of his career as teacher, university president, Governor of New Jersey, President of the United States, and participant in the shaping of international policy and international institutions. The biography, well-written and well-paced, is marked by industry and imagination in the gathering and weighting of relevant material. It presents a careful evaluation of Wilson's ideas, actions, methods and relationships, a thoughtful interpretation of his significance in national affairs, and a sensitive and honest inquiry into the shaping of his personality."286 In a supplementary report the jurors added: "We would put in second place... Ernest Samuels' Henry Adams - the Middle Years... It is a fascinating book, extremely well-written, presents a picture of Washington society in those years that is new to most of us and offers a reappraisal of a man and his time."287 The Pulitzer Prize was awarded to Arthur Walworth for his biography of Woodrow Wilson.288 The jurors for the awards of 1960 also decided to suggest just two works as being prizeworthy out of the nearly fifty books that were nominated. "As could have been anticipated," they wrote in their report, "some (books) were good, some were poor, and some should never have been nominated. In our opinion the best among them, and the one that we whole-heartedly urge for a Pulitzer Prize is Margaret Leech's In the Days of McKinley.... Here is a first-class and fascinating performance. McKinley, his wife, and the world in which they moved are brought alive in Miss Leech's sympathetic but not uncritical reconstruction of an era... If a second choice for the biography prize is in order, then in the jury's view such choice falls upon Samuel Eliot Morison's John Paul Jones... While John Paul Jones is not in a class with Morison's really great biography of Columbus, it is a good book, written with the excellent style that one expects from Morison and with his customary superior scholarship."289 Yet Margaret Leech's biography of McKinley was also discussed in the Pulitzer jury that selected the "American History" award and performed its duties at the same time. In that category the book was ranked third, so that the Advisory Board found itself a sort of dilemma. The problem was solved by giving Margaret Leech the Pulitzer Prize for American History,290 while honoring Samuel Eliot Morison in the biography category,291 who ranked second and therewith won his second Pulitzer Prize. 284 285 286 287 288 289 290

Ibid., pp.2 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. Biography Jury Report, February 20,1959, p. 1. Supplementary Biography Jury Report, April 3, 1959, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. Biography Jury Report, March 9, 1960, p. 1. Cf. Heinz-D. Fischer/Erika J. Fischer (Eds.), The Pulitzer Prize Archive, Vol. 7: American History Awards, op. cit., p. XLVII. 291 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61.

342 In 1961 when the two jurors from the previous year officiated once again, they had to pass judgement on fifty-eight books. "Best of them all, and the biography that in the jury's opinion would add greatest lustre to the roll of Pulitzer Prize-winners," the report says, "is David Donald's Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War. In this biography of Sumner, the first in a generation and more, David Donald has tackled a strange, complicated and controversial figure with sympathy, but without eulogy, with objectivity and yet with feeling. He understands his man and makes the reader, perhaps for the first time, understand him, too... Our second choice for the prize... is Edward Lurie's Louis Agassiz - A Life in Science, a scholarly, illuminating study of the brilliant Swiss geologist and zoologist... Lurie... keeps himself above the battle that arose from Agassiz's opposition to Darwinism... This is a thorough book, scholarly, probably overdetailed, yet a contribution and one for which its author doesn't need to apologize."292 The Advisory Board decided in favor of the study on Charles Sumner.293 The two jurors of 1962 although altogether in agreement on the finalists, were nevertheless unable to file a joint report. One juror ranked his favorites in the following way: "1. Citizen Hearst, by W. A. Swanberg; 2. Lafcadio Hearn, by Elizabeth Stevenson; 3. Charles Francis Adams, by Martin E. Duberman; 4. Sinclair Lewis, by Mark Schorer. Citizen Hearst," he continued in his report, "is a long, solid, impressively detailed work which is based upon massive research... This is a book which is a pleasure to read."294 The other juror first of all confirmed in his report that he did not dissent from the first juror's evaluation of the books by Duberman and Stevenson, but he also made clear: "Our difference is over the relative merits of Mark Schorer's Sinclair Lewis and W. A. Swanberg's Citizen Hearst. In my opinion Schorer's Lewis is one of the most penetrating and revealing biographies of an American man of letters that we have ever had... Swanberg's Hearst is an entertaining and colorful account of a life that was also full of painful aspects and ambiguities. What troubles me is that the book represents a limited effort and inconclusive results."295 When the chairman of the jury sent the separate reports to the Advisory Board, he expressed his regrets in a cover-letter that the jury was not made up of three members, which may have allowed for a majority vote.296 The Advisory Board, Hohenberg reports, "voted overwhelmingly for W. A. Swanberg's Citizen Hearst,"291 but for the first time in the whole history of the Pulitzer Prize the Columbia Trustees refused its consent to the Board's vote and decided "to make no biography award"298 that year. In 1963 the jurors had no problems coming to an agreement on the favorite for the prize in the biography category. "Our choices, in order of preference," they wrote in their report, "are: (1) Leon Edel's two volumes on Henry James; (2) Arthur and Barbara Gelb, O'Neill; and (3) Page Smith, John Adams."299 As both jurors found similar words of praise for the biography of Henry James, the Advisory Board had no reason to block the bestowal of the Pulitzer Prize upon Leon Edel and honored him with the award.300

292 293 294 295 296

Biography Jury Report, January 24, 1961, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. Report on books submitted for the Pulitzer Prize in biography and autobiography, undated, p. 3. Report to the Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes, December 31,1961, p. 1. Letter to the Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes, January 2,1962, p. 1.

297 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 273. 298 Ibid.,p.216. 299 Biography Jury Report, January 5, 1963, p. 1. 300 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61.

343 In 1964 two new jurors were appointed. "Our first choice," they explained in their report, "is Walter Jackson Bate's John Keats. We were mindful of the criterion that the subject should be preferably American. But we felt there were overriding reasons in support of this book. Our second choice, to offer an alternative on an American subject, is The Letters ofF. Scott Fitzgerald, edited by Andrew Turnbull... John Keats meets the need as a distinguished book in every sense... The remoteness of the poet's world is brilliantly overcome with all the scholar's arts. In contrast to this complex study, The Letters ofF. Scott Fitzgerald is simply a sensitive selection and arrangement of a writer's letters grouped accordingly to the correspondants to whom they were sent. The editing is not so thorough as one would wish, but the total effect is that of living, breathing autobiography."301 As the biography of Keats undoubtedly had greater merits, the Pulitzer prize easily went to Walter Jackson Bate.302 The two jurors who worked on the biography category in 1965 declared at the beginning of their report, that "on the whole it was a disappointing year for biography, despite the number and variety of the offerings... Fortunately, scholarly biography was better served," the report to the Advisory Board continues, "and it is from this area that your jurors have selected their recommendation for the prize. During the year Ernest Samuels... published Henry Adams - The Major Phase..., the third and concluding volume of a literary enterprise launched some fifteen years ago... The biographer, in our opinion, has treated every significant phase of Adams's life and work in a manner befitting so perfectionist a subject. We therefore recommend that the Pulitzer prize for Biography be awarded to... Samuels for his work as a whole. As runner-up we have chosen Philip L. Barbour's The Three Worlds of Captain John Smith..., in which the biographer has made a determined and largely successful effort to separate fact from fiction and the man from the legend."303 As the assets of the books about Henry Adams had been presented with utmost conviction, the prize was given to Ernest Samuels.304 In 1966 when two jurors had to evaluate the sixty-three books nominated in the biography category, the members of the jury ranked their suggestions differently again - in spite of a basic concordance: "We found ourselves, in the end, in agreement on two books of distinction," the report says, "the Autobiography of Van Wyck Brooks and Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s A Thousand Days. Both of these, to be sure, raise questions of availability for the Pulitzer Prize in biography. The Van Wyck Brooks book was written over a period of a decade or so, and belongs in part to the fifties. This is its first appearance as a single book, but not its first appearance. The Schlesinger book is not quite a biography, though it probably comes as close to qualifying in that category as the Brooks Autobiography. So far your two judges are in agreement," but they differed in the rankings of each.305 Since the Brooks work "had all been published before in separate volumes, the Board therefore, voted Schlesinger his second Pulitzer Prize for Λ Thousand Days."I®6 After many years the jury that was installed in the biography category in 1967 again consisted of three members. The jurors judged were rather disappointed with the quality of the submitted books. "The picture is not all bleak," they stated in their report to the Advisory Board, "your jurors were happy to read a handful of biographies which would 301 302 303 304 305 306

Biography Jury Report, January 31, 1964, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. Biography Jury Report, undated (January 1965), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. Biography Jury Report, undated (January 1966), p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 331 f.

344 have stood out in any year... Justin Kaplan's Mr. Clemens and Mark Twain was a distinguished accomplishment - a biography which shattered the stereotype of Mark Twain as the rugged inconoclast of the Gilded Age and presented him instead as an artist very much of his time... The narrative skillfully suggests the flow and development of the writer's life... The jury was also fortunate in being able to agree on a runner-up in Martin Duberman's James Russell Lowell, a biography which resurrects a once influential literary figure whose work has fallen into neglect, and perhaps deservedly so... Lawrance Thompson's Robert Frost - The Early Years, 1874-1915 also commended itself to us as the beginning of what promises to be a major biography... Frederic A. Pottle's James Boswell - The Early Years, 1740-1769 is likewise a work in progress... To sum up,... we unanimously recommend that the Pulitzer Prize for Biography... be awarded to Justin Kaplan."307 As the Advisory Board shared this opinion, the honor went to Kaplan's portrait of Mark Twain.308 The jurors of 1968 had "found five of the numerous books submitted... worthy of the Pulitzer Prize in biography," their report reads, presenting this order of rank: "1. George F. Kennan, Memoirs, 1925-1950; 2. Gay Wilson Allen, William James; 3. Henry Wilkinson Bragdon, Woodrow Wilson - The Academic Years; 4.-5. (on a par) Samuel Eliot Morison, Old Bruin Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry, and Glydon G. Van Deusen, William Henry Seward... Kennan's Memoirs is such a book as one can expect to see written only a few times in a generation. That it will speedily take its place among the great books in a great tradition seems unquestionable... In combination with his extraordinarily varied experience in the foreign service of the United States, these qualities and Kennan's disciplined virtuosity as a writer have resulted in a book that brilliantly illuminates the tragedy of the second World War and the ensuing tensions of the peace and the cold war from their roots in the Twenties and Thirties of this century."30^ In an additional note the jurors stressed that, if it should turn out that the Kennan book "is to receive the Prize in History (for we understand that it was originally submitted as a candidate in that field), we recommend that the Prize in Biography be awarded to Allen's William James."31° The Advisory Board, however, awarded the prize for best biography to George F. Kennan,311 who thereby got his second Pulitzer Prize after winning eleven years earlier in the History category.312 A newly appointed jury working in this prize category in 1969, did not reach a consent with regard to a definite favorite for the award. It was reported to the Advisory Board, that "two of your jurors... recommend that the... Pulitzer Prize for Biography be awarded to B. L. Reid for The Man from New York" while the third was "of the opinion that the prize should go to Clifford K. Shipton for his Harvard Graduates.,"313 Concerning the latter book, one member of the jury was of the opinion that it represented a remarkable feat of biography, "deserving of the highest accolade for creative scholarship, graceful writing, and enduring worth as the product of a single hand," whereas the two other jurors regarded this piece of work as "too limited in scope and appeal and its im307 308 309 310 311 312

Biography Jury Report, December 24, 1966, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. Biography Jury Report, January 13, 1968, pp. 1 f. Ibid.,p.l. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. Cf. Heinz-D. Fischer/Erika J. Fischer (Eds.), The Pulitzer Prize Archive, Vol. 7: American History Awards, op. cit, pp. 183ff. 313 Biography Jury Report, undated (December 1968), p. 3.

345 portance too peripheral for an award in the field of general literature."314 These two members of the jury, however, considered the title The Man from New York to be a book that "surprised many readers in that its subject, John Quinn, a New York lawyer who died in 1924, was virtually unknown, yet the biography revealed him as an active supporter of the significant art movements of the first quarter-century..."315 Thus all in all two jurors voted for Reid's book, whereas the third preferred the volume by Shipton,316 the Advisory Board selected Benjamin Lawrence Reid as Pulitzer Prizewinner for best biography.317 In 1970 three new jurors sat on the jury, first of all stating in their report that "it was a vintage year for biography. Of the 40-odd candidates, six were serious contenders." Yet the jury "has unanimously and on the first ballot selected Huey Long, by T. Harry Williams," it was said directed towards the Advisory Board. "Your committee was impressed by the adroit and effective interweaving of biography with History in Mr. Williams' book and by his ability to provide precise weighting to the numerous, complex, and sometimes sprawling aspects of his work."318 Because of these hymns of praise the Pulitzer Prize for biography was bestowed upon T. Harry Williams.319 The jury of 1971 also was able to point out one definite favorite, suggesting to the Advisory Board that "the Pulitzer Prize for Biography be awarded to Lawrance Thompson for his Robert Frost - The Years of Triumph, 1915-1938, with James MacGregor Burns' Roosevelt - The Soldier of Freedom, 1940-1945 and Thomas Flexner's George Washington and the New Nation, 1783-1793, runners-up in that order."320 The biography of Frost, the report explains in another passage, "seemed to us a work which plowed fresh ground, and presented the rugged, supposedly lovable New England poet in a new and more realistic light... It is our feeling that Thompson's achievement" is in "bringing this largely unknown figure to life."321 So the award for best biography went unanimously to Lawrance Thompson for his study about Robert Frost.322 In 1972 the jury wrote that it "has unanimously - and on the very first ballot - chosen Joseph Lash's Eleanor and Franklin... We agree that the reason for the choice is that the book, despite a kind of Official' sponsorship by the Roosevelt family, is an historical work of the first importance and treats its' subjects with candor, sympathy and understanding and shows the subjects of the book with warts and all. We agree, too, that the work has been exhaustively researched and that new insights into the subjects have been afforded us by the author."323 The Pulitzer Prize for biography without any objections on part of the Advisory Board was therefore given to Joseph P. Lash's work focussing on the marriage of Eleanor and Franklin D. Roosevelt.324 The jurors of 1973 favored W. A. Swanberg's Luce and His Empire, "the first fulllength portrait of a man whose magazines have exercised a profound influence on journalism in this country... The jury feels that Swanberg has grappled with a difficult but important subject and demonstrated the power that can be exercised by news media in 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324

Ibid.,p.2. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 61. Biography Jury Report, December 8,1969, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62. Biography Jury Report, December 15, 1970, p. 3. Ibid.,p.2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62. Biography Jury Report, December 23,1971, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62.

346 the hands of a strong, dedicated, self-willed man."325 Although, as Hohenberg explained, "strong objections to the Swanberg work had been expressed in reviews..., these did not sway the jurors. Nor did they influence the Advisory Board's majority, which accepted the jury report at face value."326 With this award W. A. Swanberg, who had not won the Pulitzer Prize for his book on Hearst a decade earlier because the Columbia-Trustees had prevented it, thus finally was given delayed satisfaction.327 The three members of the jury for the awards of 1974 regarded "as the best biography of the year, Louis Sheaffer's O'Neill - Son and Artist... It is a commanding portrait of the gifted, haunted dramatist whose best plays constitute the bedrock on which American theatre rests. This concluding volume, like its predecessor, is prodigiously researched and written with an incisive knowledge both of the theatre and of O'Neill's tormented life. Sheaffer's insights into the demons that possessed the playwright give the book, for all its length, that elan vital missing from so many of the other entries."328 As Hohenberg imparts, "there was general satisfaction" at the selection of Louis Sheaffer's O'Neill book, "which had taken sixteen years to produce."329 The Advisory Board acknowledged the author's accomplishment as well and honored him with the Pulitzer Prize for biography.330 In 1975 the jurors also found a favorite to everyone's liking in Robert A. Caro's book The Power Broker - Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. The jury, according to its report, regarded this piece of work as "gargantuan in theme and impact as well as size. It is shattering, enormously vital, and original in a sense that no other book is... The research is as impressive, prodigious, and thorough as it could be. Caro's achievement goes well beyond that of the comparatively conventional biographies... The jury believes that despite extravagances, he deserves the Pulitzer Prize for Biography. Unanimous verdict."331 Faced with these merits the Advisory Board also consented to give the award to Robert A. Caro.332 Although the jury of 1976 reached a unaminous vote for the prize-winner as well, the process of arriving at this decision nevertheless turned out to be much more complicated than in previous years. "Your jury was favorably impressed by Nancy Bale's Mary Cassatt, a distinguished American painter... High in the jury's esteem was Paul Horgan's Lamy of Santa Fe, a biography of the French priest who established the first Catholic diocese in the southwest a century ago... Steinbeck - A Life in Letters, edited and annotated by his widow, Elaine Steinbeck and Robert Wallsten, comes as close to a selfportrait as one could expect of a writer's correspondence... Loren Eiseley's All the Strange Hours is as unorthodox in its structure as all this poet-anthropologist's books have been to date... Neither of these candidates," the jury report continues later on, "however, can match R. W. B. Lewis' biography Edith Wharton, in your jury's opinion one of the finest literary biographies of recent years... Lewis has thrown a new 'even lurid'... light on a lady we thought we knew very well... This is a masterfully organized and admirably written biography which combines original research with impressive psychological insights and critical judgment. It is our unanimous recommendation, that 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332

Biography Jury Report, January 5, 1973, p. 3. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 333. Cf.ibid. Biography Jury Report, December 18, 1973, p. 2. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 332. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62. Biography Jury Report, December 23, 1974, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62.

347 R. W. B. Lewis be awarded the 1976 Pulitzer Prize for his Edith Wharton."333 The Advisory Board had no problems accepting this proposition and made Lewis the winner in the prize category of best biography.334 The jurors of 1977 once again for the first time in decades gave an impression of the work they had to cope with. "During the past six months," their report indicates, "the members of the Biography Jury have read and considered ninety-four books, most of them nominated by the publishers but some submitted at our invitation. As we read, we regularly exchanged opinions about the books, so that, in a telephone conference call... we found it easy to reach a final decision. The jury unanimously recommends that the... Pulitzer Prize in Biography be awarded to John E. Mack's A Prince of Disorder - The Life of T. E. Lawrence. All three of us believe that this book has such distinctive merits as to stand in a class by itself, with no serious competitors... The name and achievements of 'Lawrence of Arabia' have become familiar to most Americans... This... is the subject of Professor Mack's distinguished biography. His study is based upon prodigious research. He has utilized more fully than any previous biography the readily available, volominous collections of Lawrence's papers... In... recommending a biography by an American author but not about an American subject, we feel that we are making the only responsible choice; and we are reassured by the fact that we are following the distinguished precedent set in 1964 when the biography award deservedly went to Walter Jackson Bate's John Keats."33^ Faced with these arguments the Advisory Board once again made an exception and gave the prize to a book that did not completely meet the definition of the award, thus honoring John E. Mack.336 It is interesting that in 1978 the favorite for the prize confronted the members of the jury officiating that year with the same problem their colleagues had to deal with in the previous year. In "a unanimous and enthusiastic recommendation" for the Pulitzer Prize in Biography the jurors suggested to the Advisory Board the book Samuel Johnson, by W. Jackson Bate. This portrait, the report says further on, "is undoubtedly the finest biography we have received. It is perhaps the only nominee one reads with a certain kind of personal involvement... We are deeply impressed by Bate's absolute mastery and control of his material... Much more important... is the fact that Bate is so insightful and lucid on Johnson's complex psychic nature. Although this is not avowedly a psychobiography in the current, trendy sense, it can be regarded as an exemplary study of a subject's mind joined to the narrative of his behavior, interaction with others, and so forth... We are impressed by Bate's sensitive application of common sense and compassion in exploring Johnson's troubled mind and spirit."337 As this biography was also the sort of book that did not necessarily fall into the boundaries given by the definition of the prize "preferably on an American subject," the jury added by way of explanation: "If a biography on an American subject had been quite close to the quality of Samuel Johnson, we might have been in a predicament. Although there are runners-up, they are not comparable to Johnson."33^ Once again the Advisory Board had no objections to the proposal of the jury and declared W. Jackson Bate the Pulitzer Prize-winner for biography.339 333 334 335 336 337 338 339

Biography Jury Report, December 23, 1975, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 62. Biography Jury Report, December 24,1976, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62. Biography Jury Report, December 1, 1977, pp. 1 f. Ibid., p. 2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62.

348 The jurors of 1979 named in their report "six biographies of highest scholarly, literary, and subject quality, in terms of conception, organization, and execution...: 1. Leonard Baker, Days of Sorrow and Pain - Leo Baeck and the Berlin Jews; 2. Milton Meltzer, Dorothea Lange; 3. Carolly Erickson, Bloody Mary; 4. William Byron, Cervantes - A Biography; 5. William L. O'Neill, The Last Romantic ~ A Life of Max Eastman; 6. Deirdre Bair, Samuel Beckett... Within that order," the report continues, "we had no difficulty assigning first place to Leonard Baker's Days of Sorrow and Pain... This book remained in our minds as the outstanding biography we received. What makes it superior to the others? The awful grandeur of the theme, the depth of the research, the clarity and balance of the organization and expression - all these. It has shortcomings. One Juror, after praising it, noted that Baker did not explain adequately how Baeck managed his liaison with the Nazis, even for the lofty purposes and results of that connection. But reservations notwithstanding, this is the book we put forward as our choice for the first place in this distinguished roster."340 With this vote for the third time in a row a book ranked first that was not necessarily in agreement with the definition of the prize, prompting the jury to write the following additional note: "The trend continues, in biographies at least, that non-American subjects are producing better biographies than those of Americans."341 The Advisory Board took note of this and the prize-suggestion as well, giving the award to Leonard Baker's biography of Leo Baeck.342 The biography jury of 1980 it says in its report, "unanimously recommends as its first choice The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, by Edmund Morris... This volume takes Roosevelt only to his accession to the presidency in 1901, with another to follow. This book stands on its own, however. Sound in its research and highly readable in its presentation, it invokes the lively image of an uncommon American who was yet almost symbolically characteristic of his nation's qualities... The unanimous second choice is The Duke of Deception, by Geoffrey Wolff."343 There was no contradiction on the part of the Advisory Board, and so the Pulitzer Prize for best biography went to Edmund Morris.344 The jurors of 1981 again pleaded that a book on a non-American subject matter ought to take the first place. The piece of work in question was the study Peter the Great, by Robert K. Massie. "This is a biography - and History as well - on a heroic scale," the report indicates. "In intricate and massive detail, Massie portrays a man as complicated as his times, whose personal life was as dramatic as his military conquests, who imposed his character and will not only upon Russia but upon the balance of power in Europe, who still plays an ambiguous role in the memory of his countrymen, and who invites endless speculation upon the differences between pre-modern and modern dictators."34^ Walt Whitman - A Life by Justin Kaplan ranked second,346 yet the prize was bestowed upon Robert K. Massie's biography of Peter the Great.347 The jury for the awards in 1982 named in its report the following three finalists "in alphabetical not rank order...: Gay Wilson Allen, Waldo Emerson; David McCullough, Mornings on Horseback; William S. McFeely, Grant. Each of these books makes an outstanding contribution; each will remain of lasting significance... Gay Wilson Allen's 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347

Biography Jury Report, December 15, 1978, pp. 1 f. Ibid., p. 3. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62. Biography Jury Report, December 19, 1979, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62. Biography Jury Report, December 20,1980, p. 1. Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62.

349 Waldo Emerson is the most comprehensive and sensitive study yet made of this important figure in American intellectual life in the nineteenth century... What emerges from the book is a profound new understanding and appreciation of Emerson... The book is written with unusual felicity and grace... David McCullough's Mornings on Horseback is a remarkably sympathetic and informed study of the early life of Theodore Roosevelt... McCullough's Roosevelt is the man who will not be avoided in the future; he is the figure who will become a vital part of our History as it will be written from now on... William S. McFeely's Grant is preeminent in two essential ways. First, it authoritatively establishes a new place in our historic memory of an important American, deepens our understanding of his private character as well as of his public experience. Second, it is exemplary in its exploitation of the biographer's art... Above all McFeely presents throughout the stubbornly surviving quality of this extraordinary-ordinary man which surfaced in his autobiography. McFeely offers an historian-biographer's study that fully appreciates not only events but the human actor at the center."348 The members of the Advisory Board voted for the latter piece of work and announced that William S. McFeely had won the Pulitzer Prize in the biography category. 349 The jurors of 1983 made up a list of three proposals in alphabetical order, although this order was not based on the names of the finalists but on the titles of the suggested books: Churchill - Young Man in a Hurry, by Ted Morgan; Growing Up, by Russell Baker; Thomas E. Dewey and His Times, by Richard Norton Smith. The statements of the jury concerning the three biographies read as follows: "1. Churchill - Ted Morgan not only brings vividly to life young Winston Churchill and his world, but skillfully illuminates the formation of a character often written about, but rarely so artfully delineated. 2. Growing Up - A journey into the self and America's recent past that goes far beyond memoir to become a powerful work of literature and undoubtedly an American classic. 3. Thomas Dewey - Richard Smith creates a Dewey far more interesting and complex than had been imagined, and around him has built a revealing study of the modern Republican party."350 In spite of his winning a Pulitzer Prize in a journalism category only four years earlier, the Advisory Board gave Russell Baker the award for best biography.351 In 1984 the group of the three finalists, listed by the jury in alphabetical order by title, consisted of: Black Apollo of Science - The Life of Ernest Everett Just, by Kenneth Manning; Booker T. Washington - The Wizard of Tuskegee, 1901-1915, by Louis R. Harlan; Thomas Carlyle - A Biography by Fred Kaplan. "Manning's book was impressive," it is stated in the jury report, "for its discovery of a strikingly significant life hitherto unknown in its reality and complexity... Harlan's Washington is a revelatory picture of one of the most conspicuous of Black American lives... Harlan has written a valuable chapter in our History... Kaplan has retold the story of a great and baffling English Victorian,... written with energy and grace."352 The Advisory Board selected the study by Louis R. Harlan.353 In 1985 when the jurors listed their favorites in alphabetical order by name, the three suggestions read as follows: Howard M. Feinstein, Becoming William James; Michael Mott, The Seven Mountains of Thomas Merton; Kenneth Silverman, The Life and Times 348 349 350 351 352 353

Biography Jury Report, December 18,1981, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62. Biography Jury Report, undated (January 1983), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62. Biography Jury Report, January 18,1984, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62.

350

Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography, 1987

351

of Cotton Mather?54 In the separate justifications it was explained that Feinstein's book "is artful in both conception and execution. The language is direct and economical yet often eloquent."355 "As exposition and analysis," the jurors characterized Mott's piece of work, "the book is masterly, and it is beautifully written - no flourishing, no self-reference, no mere prettiness."356 Regarding Silverman's volume they noted that he succeeded, "in making understandable both Mather and the time in which he lived,... in a prose that is clear and lively."357 To the Advisory Board the arguments in favor of Kenneth Silverman's book seemed to be the most convincing, so that the biography of Cotton Mather won the Pulitzer Prize.358 The list of three with the finalists of 1986, presented in the report of the jurors contained the following books and evaluations: "Elizabeth Frank, Louise Began - A Portrait,... is an outstanding work ... It is a unique and very special book that is worthy of the Pulitzer Prize... John Hope Franklin, George Washington Williams - A Biography... is a splendid scholarly work that merits the Pulitzer Prize. Frida Weinstein, A Hidden Childhood... is a memorable work, and the book is the closest to a work of art."35^ Finally the portrait of Bogan by Elizabeth Frank was chosen and won the authoress the Pulitzer Prize for best biography.360 In 1987 the jury had three new members who made up the following list of finalists: Dostoevsky: The Stir of Liberation, 1860-1865, by Joseph Frank; The Life and Times of Congressman John Quincy Adams, by Leonard L. Richards; Murrow - His Life and Times, by A. M. Sperber.361 Yet - for the first time in years - the Advisory Board made use of its fundamental prerogative to add to the jury's list a suggestion of its own, if it seemed appropriate. In this case it completely ignored the jury's three propositions and declared a fourth book out of the submitted entries as the winner. The study in question was by David J. Garrow on the subject matter of Bearing the Cross - Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership conference, winning the Pulitzer Prize for biography.362 In 1988 a new jury took up the effort and announced these three books as the finalists: "David Herbert Donald, Look Homeward - A Life of Thomas Wolfe... is a classic biography: judicious, graphic, balanced and perceptive. Donald paints Wolfe with infinite nuance; he emerges as complex, many-sided, hateful, tremendously gifted, sadly flawed. Donald is relentless in his pursuit of the truth about Wolfe - the result is a remarkably round life of the writer as artist and tormented personality... Kenneth S. Lynn, Hemingway... creates an unfamiliar picture of Hemingway's career that is also an appalling study of human disintegration... John McCormick, George Santayana - A Biography... is a superbly literate biography, impressive in its range and scope, a fitting tribute to its magisterial subject."363 The Advisory Board selected the biography of Wolfe by David Herbert Donald and made him the winner.364 354 Biography Jury Report, January I, 1985, p. 1.

355 Ibid., p. 2. 356 Ibid.,p.l. 357 Ibid., p. 4.

358 359 360 361 362 363 364

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 62. Biography Jury Report, December 23,1985, pp. 2 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62. Columbia University, The 71st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 16, 1987, p. 6. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62. Biography Jury Report, December 26, 1987, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62.

352 The Nominating Jury in Biography for 1989 wrote in its report among other things: "Richard Ellmann's Oscar Wilde is a masterly achievement in biography, composed with high literary skill and the intellectual profoundity needed to express his subject's complexity and cultural meaning...; Peter Gay, Freud - A Life for Our Times... is a major scholarly achievement... Professor Gay has mastered the literature and offers his own judicious, well-paced, and nuanced interpretation...; Neil Sheehan, A Bright and Shining Lie - John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam... is the book on America's role in Vietnam."365 Richard Ellmann posthumously was honored with the Pulitzer Prize for best biography for his study of Oscar Wilde.366 In the awarding year of 1990 the jury named four finalists and gave these comments: "Sebastian de Grazia's Machiavelli in Hell is an artistic and intellectual achievement of the finest order. Audaciously, the author has discarded the conventional task of linking a political theorist to his times in favor of a biography unconventionally but successfully conceived... Machiavelli in Hell is a demanding book - it presupposes considerable knowledge of early modern political history and of Machiavelli's literary work, but the reader is attractively challenged to explore that world... In some of the finest descriptive prose we have encountered in recent years," the jury report said about the second book, "Jill Ker Conway in The Road from Coorain tells of her upbringing on a remote sheep ranch in Australia. This powerful and yet modest autobiographical work is a valuable addition to the literature of the globe's remaining frontiers..."367 The third book on the short list was Clear Pictures - First Loves, First Guides, by Reynolds Price. The jury described it with the following words: "Snapshots of an ordinary middle-class Southern family accompany a family narrative in which the goodness of things seems always to triumph over adversity... With his appropriate and strong title, A First-Class Temperament" the jurors said about the fourth finalist, "Geoffrey Ward has written handsomely of the years in which Franklin Roosevelt matured as a politician and, combatting polio, as a man."368 The Pulitzer biography award went to de Grazia's book on Machiavelli?^ The jurors of 1991 agreed upon the following three praiseworthy candidates in alphabethical order: "(1) Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith, Jackson Pollock. This massive, fully researched biography, appropriately subtitled An American Saga, recreates the life and world of America's most famous twentieth-century painter... Naifeh and Smith are especially skillful in recreating the rival cliques and shifting loyalities of the New York art world, both in the 1930's when Pollock was an apprentice and in the 1950's when he was an acknowledged master. We feel that no better life of an American artist has ever been written. (2) Patricia OToole, The Five of Hearts. Surely the most enchanting of the biographies we read this year, Ms. OToole's book weaves together the lives of Henry and Clover Adams, John and Clara Hay, and Clarence King (along with a supporting cast that includes Theodore Roosevelt, Mrs. Don Cameron, and scores of others) with singular understanding and great literary skill... The book provides a splendid picture of the American intellectual and political elite at the turn of the century. (3) Joseph Frazier Wall, Alfred I. Dupont: The Man & the Family... This book... may well be the best biography ever written of an American businessman... We found the 365 366 367 368 369

Biography Jury Report, December 15, 1988, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62. Biography Jury Report, January 4,1990, pp. 1 f. Ibid., pp. 3 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 62.

353 whole book fascinating."370 The Advisory Board decided in favor of the study on Jackson Pollock by Naifeh and Smith.371 In 1992 the jury's shortlist contained the following three works: Fortunate Son, by Lewis B. Puller; Frederick Douglass, by William S. McFeely; and Orwell - The Authorized Biography, by Michael Shelden. Puller's autobiography concentrated on his Vietnam time where he stepped on a land mine while fleeing the enemy and lost both legs. One juror commented after reading this book that she "found herself more moved by it than any other book" under consideration for the Pulitzer Prize. The jury said about McFeely's book: "Although others have told Douglass' amazing story, McFeely has created a wonderfully readable blend of classic biographical narrative, judicious psychological speculation and a heaping of fascinating social history." The Orwell biography by Michael Shelden was praised as "a book that is objective, fair and sympathetic. And it manages to be concise without leaving out anything important. And it is very lively reading."372 The Board voted in favor of Fortunate Son - The Healing of a Vietnam Vet and Lewis B. Puller Jr. earned the award.373 The jurors of 1993 nominated these three finalists: Genius - The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, by James Gleick; Kissinger - A Biography, by Walter Isaacson; and Truman, by David McCullough. Gleick's book, according to the jury, was "written with unfailing clarity, lyric passion, and narrative drive..., a paean to the life of science, and a funny, moving, awe-inspiring story." Isaacson's work about Henry Kissinger was called "smart and exciting to read, one of the most compelling political biographies of recent years." And there was also praise for David McCullough's Truman biography: "McCullough apparently took a lesson from his subject: with hard work, plain speaking, and intellectual gusto this study of Truman emerges as a stellar Presidential biography."374 So thought the members of the Pulitzer Prize Board, too, and they declared the Truman book by David McCullough as the winner in this award category.375 In 1994 the jurors expressed at the beginning of their report: "From a shelf of perhaps a dozen works of true distinction, we offer, with full confidence in their merit, three fine biographies." Deborah Baker's book In Extremis - The Life of Laura Riding was called "thoroughly researched, but artfully distilled" and a "literary biography of a very high order." David Levering Lewis's book on W.E.B. Du Bois was praised as to be "simultaneously a biography, an intellectual portrait of a major American thinker, and a deeply probing study of an emerging class of African-American leaders." Genet - A Biography, by Edmund White, was the third finalist. The author, in the eyes of the jury, "has drawn on a deep understanding of contemporary culture and quietly applied the fruit of prodigious research to give us a Jean Genet of full magnitude. Genet is a classic study of seldommatched excellence."376 The Board filtered out the book by David Levering Lewis who earned the Pulitzer Prize for W.E.B. Du Bois - Biography of a Race 1868-1919.311 The jurors of 1995 mentioned first in their report the biography Harriet Beecher Stowe, by Joan D. Hedrick. Her book, the jury said, "transcends the public Harriet Beecher Stowe to probe an intensely personal story as well... Hedrick builds solidly on 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377

Biography Jury Report, December 27, 1990, pp. 2 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 62. Biography Jury Report, December 29, 1991, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1992, p. 6. Biography Jury Report, undated (January 1993), pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 13,1993, p. 6. Biography Jury Report, January 4, 1994, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12,1994, p. 6.

354 feminist scholarship of the last twenty-five years; her scrupulously researched biography enriches both her field and her readers." Roger K. Newman's biography of Hugo Black deals with one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in American history. The author "has given us a full, richly detailed life of the man," the jurors said, "without blinking his faults. The legal battles are recounted lucidly and dramatically; the research is massive yet aptly shaped." Stacy Schiff was represented on the jury's shortlist with her biography of Saint-Exupery. The author was called by the jurors "a wonderful writer and a sensitive understander; she has written a biography that will be difficult to match for sheer reading pleasure."378 The Board decided in favor of Joan D. Hedrick's book Harriet BeecherStowe -A Life.™ In 1996 the list of the jury's finalists started with the book John Sloan - Painter and Rebel, by John Loughery. The author, in the opinion of the jurors, "writes perceptively about the integration of art and politics in Sloan's life... John Loughery's John Sloan is an altogether admirable example of the biographer's art." Jack Miles was among the finalists with his work God - A Biography, and the jury stated at the beginning of its report: "Can one write a biography of God? Can there be any 'life of God' that is not simply another theological statement or exercise in literary criticism? This panel's answer is an enthusiastic yes... Jack Miles has achieved the unthinkable: he has written a convincing and persuasive biography of a personality who has changed the course of history. In recognizing this book, the Pulitzer Committee would recognize original thinking, brilliant style and profound learning." Maynard Solomons's Mozart - A Life was mentioned as the third finalist. This book, in the eyes of the jury, "is a triumph of learning and restrained psychological understanding, alive with insights into a complex man."380 The winner was Jack Miles for his biography God.381 After the jurors of 1997 had considered one hundred and sixteen books in the biography or autobiography category, they nominated these three finalists: In The Wilderness, by Kim Barnes; Angela's Ashes, by Frank McCourt; and Herman Melville, Vol. 1, 18191851, by Hershel Parker. Kim Barnes's memoir of her childhood was called "a worthy candidate for the Pulitzer Prize for Biography." Frank McCourt's book was an autobiography, too, and it was, in the view of the jury, a "heartwrenching, funny and lyrical memoir." The biography of Herman Melville by Hershel Parker, as the jury report states, contains "great passages of exciting writing and his biography will be the one that scholars and Melville fans will be reading and referring to for the next fifty years... This biography is a stunning achievement."382 The Pulitzer Prize Board bestowed the award on Frank McCourt's Angela's Ashes - A Memoir.383 In 1998 the jury nominated to the Board the following three biographical works: Alfred C. Kinsey - A Public/Private Life, by James H. Jones. According to the jurors, "Jones has written an intriguing, if somewhat disturbing book... Jones has written a biography that captures the spirit of both the man and his times." Personal History, by Katharine Graham, came next on the jury's list. The memoirs of the publisher of the Washington Post, in the eyes of the jury, "goes to the heart of life in Washington as the city emerged as a true world capital... Her (book) is a unique take on twentieth century 378 379 380 381 382 383

Biography Jury Report, December 28, 1994, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 18,1995, p. 8. Biography Jury Report, January 1, 1996, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 9, 1996, p. 8. Biography Jury Report, January 2, 1997, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1997, p. 7.

355 America from a person who quietly influenced its course." Whittaker Chambers - A Biography, by Sam Tanenhaus, was the third finalist in this category. This book was called an "important, engrossing, and scrupulously documented biography."384 The Pulitzer Prize Board was in favor of Katharine Graham's Personal History and declared her the winner.385 The jury's shortlist of 1999 mentioned these three books as worthy of the award: Lindbergh, by A. Scott Berg; At Home with the Marquis de Sade - A Life, by Francine du Plessix Gray; and A Beautiful Mind, by Sylvia Nasar. A. Scott Berg's biography of Charles Lindbergh won the Pulitzer Prize.386 In 2000 the jury's three favorites were as follows: Clear Springs - A Memoir, by Bobbie Ann Mason; Vera (Mrs. Vladimir Nabokov), by Stacy Schiff; and Galileo's Daughter - A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love, by Dava Sobel. This time the Pulitzer Prize Board selected Stacy Schiffs biography Vera (Mrs. Vladimir Nabokov) as the winner.387 Because of the ongoing interest in biographical works this particular Pulitzer Prize will keep its position in the literary field.

12.3

General Non-Fiction Award

After the Pulitzer Prizes for "American History" and for "Biography/Autobiography" had been continually awarded for forty-five years, an additional prize division from the nonfiction area was created in 1962, it was called "General Non-Fiction."388 The new prize category was developed for all of those fact-oriented books which did not fit in either of the two already existing award-groups.389 Accordingly, this supplementary Pulitzer Prize was defined rather vaguely.390 Regarding this matter Hohenberg writes that "the award recognized valued works that were compounded in part of journalism, history, philosophy, political action, depth psychology, and literature... The Advisory Board wasn't quite certain how it wanted to define General Non-Fiction but finally agreed on a catch-all description: 'For a distinguished book by an American which is not eligible for consideration in any other existing category.' That wording," Hohenberg continues, "set off an annual avalanche of books of all descriptions, from cook books to travelogues, explorations in journalism to belles lettres, a collection that was bound to try the patience and the judgment of the most devoted judges... The selection of the first non-fiction prize-winner... went a long way toward setting the pattern for the category."391 The two members of the 1962 jury agreed first of all on some basic criteria for the awarding of the new prize and stated concerning this matter " 1. that a book which was planned and developed as a book should take precedence over what was simply a compilation of articles; 2. that the pressing contemporary themes - disarmament, civil rights, urban blight, education, scientific discovery in its broadest terms, juvenile delinquency, conservation, and the democratic process, especially if dealt with constructively - would 384 385 386 387 388

Biography Jury Report, December 29, 1997, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 14, 1998, p. 6. Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12,1999, p. 6. Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 10, 2000, p. 6. Cf. Heinz-D. Fischer/Erika J. Fischer (Eds.), The Pulitzer Prize Archive, Vol. 9: General Non-Fiction Awards 1962-1993, Munich - New Providence - London - Paris 1996, LII + 362 pp. 389 Cf. ibid., pp. 3 ff. 390 Cf. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 233.

391 Ibid., pp. 281 f.

356 be likely to rank a work ahead of a study of pure or of popularized scholarship; 3. finally, we could not be unaware," the jurors continued in their preliminary reflections, "that a new award in such an all-embracing field would have it in its power to advance the prestige of a newcomer, whereas its bestowal on a book which had long been on the top of the best-seller lists would in some quarters be regarded as a bow to popular opinion and taken for granted. While we do not oppose best-sellers, we do favor work in which the force of originality and the impact of new ideas would have their effect on the public. In the many Atlantic contests," one of the two jurors added, "fiction and non-fiction, which I have judged, it was axiomatic that at some early stage a manuscript would appear which the readers would recognize as the book to beat. This leading candidate would be read and reported on by all the judges, and thereafter manuscripts which came close to it would be sized up against it and would finally be grouped with it as semifinalists. The Making of the President, 1960, by Theodore H. White..." was the jury's favorite392 and finally earned the award.393 When judging the books on hand the jurors of 1963 had no problems agreeing on a first place. "In setting up this 'non-fiction' category, for a book by an American author in any field not covered by the other prizes," the report reveals, they "had in mind a possible enlargement of the Pulitzer field to include the European scene. With such a conception it seems... that Tuchman's The Guns of August easily takes first place among the books submitted to us. Mrs. Tuchman shows extraordinary skill in organizing complex masses of detail into a colorful and constantly lively narrative, and her impressive research has served to throw fresh light on events which, she proves, most of us had thought more familiar than they are... On the whole, E. B. White's The Points of My Compass was... second choice... Edmund Wilson's Patriotic Gore... was... third choice."394 John Hohenberg stresses that "there was no argument at all about the 1963 winner, Barbara Tuchman's expert recital of the events leading up to World War I, The Guns of August. It was easily the first choice of the jury..., the unanimous selection of the Board, and a great favorite with the public. The only unusual part of it was that Mrs. Tuchman received the news of her first Pulitzer Prize."395 In 1964 when the two jurors in the General Non-Fiction category consented to a list of three proposals, this list contained the following books: The Quiet Crisis, by Stewart Udall; Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, by Richard Hofstadter; and The Fire Next Time, by James Baldwin. "Udall's book," the report says about the first of the abovementioned works, is "a work of high vision and dedication," and it "is written in a warm, unaffected and forthright style in its appeal to the most decent and mature instincts of political man." According to the jury report, Hofstadter's book "is a work of immediately recognizable distinction by an outstanding historian. It is a beautifully designed survey of how American society throughout its history has regarded the sometimes alarming, sometimes inspiring, and always vital instrument of human intelligence... There can be no doubt that this is one of the truly distinguished books of the year." And regarding Baldwin's book the jurors observed that "this is an impassioned essay in the great tradition of disputatious literature. We pay it high tribute when we say that its subject - the most pressing social question of our domestic history - has here found a proper voice. 392 393 394 395

General Non-Fiction Jury Report (I), January 16, 1962, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 65. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, February 7, 1963, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 282.

357 Drawing upon his personal experiences as a Negro in a white world, the author presents his own sufferings modestly..."396 Although, as Hohenberg emphasizes, "Hofstadter's 1964 winner, Anli-Intellectualism in American Life, wasn't an automatic choice," the jurors had "praised it so highly that it won unanimous acceptance" with the members of the Advisory Board as well.397 The jury members of 1965 did express different opinions about the books to be judged. They agreed first on a list of four finalists, which resulted with one of the jurors in the following rank order: First: A Moveable Feast, by Ernest Hemingway; Second: Gideon's Trumpet, by Anthony Lewis; Third: Ο Strange New World, by Howard Mumford Jones; Fourth: White and Black - Test of a Nation, by Samuel Lubell. "Hemingway," he justified his choice of a favorite, "is at his best in A Moveable Feast... The style of the book is lucidly expressionist. The portraits in it are unsparingly candid. No writer this year has surpassed Hemingway... It is particularly fitting that his style, his tragic sense of life, should be honored with a Pulitzer Prize for a book that will itself become a classic."398 The other juror, however, placed the Hemingway book on the fourth position of his list, on which Ο Strange New World was ranked first place. "The book stands on its own," he explained his decision, "but honoring it would also honor a man who has given a lifetime's distinguished contribution to American letters."399 The Advisory Board proved to be convinced by the latter argument and awarded the Pulitzer Prize to Howard Mumford Jones and his book Ο Strange New World. Thus the other juror's recommendation, to honor Hemingway posthumously, got no response.400 The year 1966 brought a reorientation in the awarding of the prize, as - for the first time - the jurors did not decide on an historical subject. Those two jurors had no problems agreeing on the book Wandering Through Winter, by Edwin Way Teale, as an outstanding work. It was followed on their list by Who Speaks for the Negro, by Robert Penn Warren, and The Scientific Estate, by Don K. Price.401 Teale's Wandering Through Winter "deepened," according to one of the jurors, "our understanding and delectified our appreciation of this great country as no other naturalist has had the breadth or patience to do "402 jhg second juror's argument, according to which "this book deserves a prize on its own merits,"403 was also accepted by the Advisory Board, so that the Pulitzer honor was bestowed upon Edwin W. Teale.404 In 1967 when for the first time three jurors were active in the General Non-Fiction category, "it was the unanimous choice of the committee to give the prize in this category to The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, by David Brion Davis. This book represents... a major intellectual contribution to a theme which is of concern to contemporary Americans, dealing as it does, not only with slavery, but with the whole Western view of the worth of the individual. The book is well written, original in concept, and embodies a high degree of scholarly attainment... The second choice," the jury report continues, "was The Icon and the Axe, by James H. Billington. This survey of Russian culture is quite elegantly written and based on a wide and meticulous scholarship. It was 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404

General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 28, 1964, pp. 1 ff. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 282. General Non-Fiction Jury Report (I), undated (Spring 1965), p. 1. General Non-Fiction Jury Report (II), undated (Spring 1965), p. 1. Cf. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 282 f. General Non-Fiction Jury Report (I), January 5, 1966, p. 1. General Non-Fiction Jury Report (II), January 6, 1966, p. 2. General Non-Fiction Jury Report (I), January 5, 1966, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 338.

358 not easy to choose between this and the above book on slavery... The committee puts in third place In Cold Blood, by Truman Capote. Evidently this book cannot be compared directly with the two above, and it is less a matter of ranking it below them than of placing it in a different category... It is, moreover, journalism of a very superior sort."405 The Advisory Board decided in favor of the book The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture and awarded the prize to David B. Davis.406 The jurors of 1968 dealt as well and right at the beginning of their report with questions of classification and delimitation by explaining: "The problem confronting the Non-Fiction Jury this year was not so much one of quality as of diversity. Since its inception Non-Fiction has been a grab-bag category into which are shunted all non-fiction entries which are not unmistakably history or biography. The category is, in fact, so broad as to be virtually meaningless. The jurors are required to examine books which cannot fairly be weighed against each other."407 In spite of this general uncertainty the jury succeeded in naming a group of finalists, in which the book The Code-Breakers, by David Kahn, took the leading position. The work was evaluated as "a monumental history and exposition of cryptography. It impressed two... jurors as a definitive study, admirably organized and written, which explored the scholarly, military and diplomatic implications of the subject."408 As runner-up the jury chose Beyond Vietnam, by Edwin O. Reischauer, and the "third place was devided between three books...: The Temper Of Our Times, by Eric Hoffer;... The New Industrial State, by John Kenneth Galbraith;... Rousseau and Revolution, by Will and Ariel Durant."409 By one of the jurors the latter book was characterized as "an enduring achievement in the popularization of history for the general reader," being "the tenth and concluding volume in their history of civilization begun forty years ago."410 The Advisory Board proved to be convinced by the latter argument and made use of its fundamental right to consider the jury's vote merely as an assistance in its own decision-making. Accordingly, the prize went to the writer-couple Will and Ariel Durant.411 The jurors of 1969 also saw themselves confronted with the problems of definition, which was posed by the General Non-Fiction category. One of the jury members complained: "Given the absence of clear guidelines, one is uncertain how to weigh one book, for example, which forcefully addresses itself to the most urgent human problems against another book of narrower scope which may be more successful in carrying out its author's intent and design... Norman Mailer's The Armies of the Night clearly stands out, in my judgement, above its worthy competitors. Although I have never, frankly speaking, been an admirer of Mr. Mailer or his work, I am overwhelmed by the brilliance and significance of this book... It seems to me that The Armies of the Night raises public reporting and sociological analysis to a level of high art."412 Although a second juror also did not restrain the reservations he basically had about Mailer's person, he, as well, was very much taken by the book and especially praised the author's "precision, clarity, inclusiveness, and the evident intensity of his desire to be adequate to the truth."41·' The 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413

General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 16,1967, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 65. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 25, 1967, p. 1. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 1 f. Ibid.,p.2. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 339. General Non-Fiction Jury Report (I), January 21,1969, p. 1. General Non-Fiction Jury Report (II), January 28, 1969, pp. 1 f.

359 third juror, however, pleaded for awarding the prize to So Human An Animal, by Rene Dubos. "The book," he argued, "is remarkably successful in building a bridge between humanism and science... the book has genuine literary merit."414 The Advisory Board voted two coequal Non-Fiction Prizes, one for Dubos and the other for Mailer.415 In 1970 the three jury members had no trouble at all agreeing on one favorite in this prize category. Accordingly the jury's chairman wrote in his report to the Advisory Board that it was their "unanimous opinion that the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction should be awarded to Erik Erikson's Gandhi's Truth. Two of us," the chairman added, "think very highly of Peter Gay's The Enlightenment: Volume 2, all three of us think highly of Richard Watt's The Kings Depart - but all three of us agree that Erikson should receive the prize. I have been more than encouraged by my fellow committeemen," he addressed the Board, "to say that we believe future judges of the general nonfiction category would be spared much aggravation and waste of time if your office stressed to publishers that die prize is given for a work of letters - hence albums, compilations, gimmicks and other publications without real literary qualities should not be submitted."416 As to the awarding of the prize the Advisory Board acted on the jury's recommendations without restriction. "For 1970," Hohenberg evaluated the result, "once again, the Non-Fiction Prize veered off into academic territory and a subject far removed from current interest - the origins of Mohandas K. Gandhi's theories of non-violence and an analysis of the first massive strike movement he led in India after World War I."417 In their report, the three jury members of 1971 notified the Advisory Board that they had unanimously chosen John Toland's The Rising Sun as the winner in their category. "I do not propose to send on to you our correspondence nor a report of our conversations," the jury chairman stated, "for the decision was so clean and clear that it was arrived at independently without debate by each of us. Toland's work is a magnificent study of the war as seen by the Japanese, a reconstruction of a passage of history, easily the equivalent of William Shirer's great book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. All of us will be thoroughly upset if our recommendation is ignored but, since you so request, I am giving you the second and third choices," which referred to the following books: Crisis in the Classroom, by Charles E. Silberman; Justice: The Crisis of Law, Order and Freedom in America, by Richard Harris; The People vs. Blücher, by Eliot Asinof; Social Contract, by Robert Ardrey; Race to Oblivion, by Herbert York.41** The Advisory Board agreed on the recommendations, which the jury had convincingly presented, and awarded the Pulitzer Prize to John Toland.419 The jury of 1972 self-confidently announced in their report: "The non-fiction award in our curious category goes - unanimously - to Gay Talese for his Honor Thy Father... Our second choice (again unanimous) is Norman Mailer's Of a Fire on the Moon."420 But neither the first book title nor the second won the Pulitzer Prize, as the recipient of the award was determined in a different way; thereabout John Hohenberg provides the following details: "Another Advisory Board intervention brought the Non-Fiction Prize for 1972 to one of the most admired and widely read books of the year, Barbara 414 415 416 417 418 419 420

General Non-Fiction Jury Report (III), January 28,1969, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 339. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 30, 1969, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 339 f. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 6,1971, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 65. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 28, 1971, p. 1.

360 Tuchman's Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-1945. This was a prime example of the convergence of history, biography, and journalism. For in that year the History Jury reported that Mrs. Tuchman's work was Outstanding but we believe it should be a more serious candidate for a prize in biography.' The Biography Jury ranked it second to Eleanor and Franklin, called it the 'work of a brilliant pro' and 'fascinating historical journalism,' but ruled: 'More impressive however as history than biography. Perhaps ought to be considered in the history category.' What the Board did was to give Stilwell first place in non-fiction, thus setting aside that jury's recommendation for Gay Talese's story of a Mafia chieftain, Honor Thy Father."421 In 1973 the jury members had to deal with a large number of nominations in this category, a fact on which they commented at the beginning of their report, as follows: "From close to two hundred nominations, we have unanimously agreed on two final contenders as distinguished combinations of content and writing. In our order of preference they are, first, Robert Coles's Children of Crisis, Vols. Π and III; and, second, Frances FitzGerald's Fire in the Lake. Coles's volumes... not only continue an exceptional series but stand on their own as fresh sources for understanding the American land and people and their unmet needs... He adds to his extraordinary job of human research the literary achievement of evoking its settings and preserving the essence of individual voices while putting them into readable printed form. Miss FitzGerald's book, subtitled The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam' has rightly received a great deal of public attention. Some of its language and arguments are loaded, but its long view of Vietnamese society provides a remarkably coherent interpretation of events to put beside official statements and Western assumptions."422 As the jurors had in this way, as Hohenberg puts it, "praised both works so highly in their jury report..., the Advisory Board once again decided to vote two coequal prizes," with the result that Robert Coles and Frances FitzGerald were both honored with the award.423 The jury of 1974 which had to assess about 180 books,424 finally arrived at the conviction that there was one acknowledged favorite, namely the book The Denial of Death, by Ernest Becker. One of the jurors praised the work as "a remarkable, creative synthesis of the major intuitions achieved in the behavioral sciences during this century."425 Another jury member commended the author for his capacity to take a multitude of theoretical propositions into consideration: "The Denial of Death," the juror wrote in his own words, "fuses them clearly, beautifully, with amazing concision, into an organic body of theory which attempts nothing less than to explain the possibilities of man's meaningful, sane survival - and this at a time when he is emotionally bankrupting himself by spending his energies in psychological supermarkets, desperately hoping to discover instant salvation, prepackaged gods."426 Aside from the merits, which the third juror attributed to the content of the work, he stressed that "The Denial of Death is a work of insight and originality, written with a stylistic grace seldom seen in the literature of the social sciences."427 Thanks to these commendations on the part of each of the jury members the Advisory Board did not see any problems in awarding the Pulitzer Prize for 421 422 423 424 425 426 427

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 340. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 5,1973, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 340. Ibid. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 31, 1973, p. 1. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 2,1974, p. 1. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 14, 1974, p. 1.

361

"The best and best informed expose to appear so far. . . every American of every age should read this book." —Alex Comfort

BeingOld in America

Robert N. Butler, MD. Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction, 1976

362 general non-fiction to Ernest Becker,428 who could no longer receive the honor. It became a posthumous award, for the author died several weeks before the prize announcement.429 As to the determination of the 1975 finalists, the jurors wrote in their report: "Digging through the entries the jury did find a number of books which met its general criteria... Only a handful of contenders impressed your jury as worthy of serious consideration. Outstanding among them was Supership, a powerful and penetrating expose of the ecological danger posted by the fleets of giant tankers now plowing the seven seas. The author, Noel Mostert, describes a voyage in such a tanker graphically yet objectively and lays bare the dangers such ships pose to coastal life... The jury has narrowed down the field to three other titles: Annie Dillard's Pilgrim at Tinker Creek is a young naturalist's obeisance to Nature in a valley of Virginia's Blue Mountains. Miss Dillard is an expert observer in whom science has not etiolated a sense of awe... Her book is a blend observation and introspection, mystery and knowledge. This is an American work in the fullest sense of the word. We unanimously recommend it for the Prize. As runner-up we favor Lewis Thomas' The Lives of a Cell... For third place we propose Beast or Angel?, by Reno Dubos."430 The Advisory Board decided in favor of the book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek and awarded the Pulitzer Prize to Annie Dillard.431 Unlike the jurors of some of the preceding years, the jury members of 1976 had no problems at all in coming to a unanimous vote. "Of all the Pulitzer judging assignments I have had over the years," the jury chairman wrote, "I can't remember any that went as smoothly as this... The fact of an early consensus did not, however, block a thoroughgoing discussion."432 Concerning the selection of the finalists, the jury ranked the book Why Survive? Being Old in America, by Robert N. Butler, first place. "The judges were attracted to the combination of subject matter, literary skill, scholarship, and treatment," it says in the report, "the book ought to make a genuine contribution to the amelioration of the question it defines and explores. For our second choice, we have selected: The Healing Hand: Man and Wound in the Ancient World, by Guido Majno. This is a most unusual book. It examines a perennially compelling subject - the relationship of doctor and patient - but its focus is on the early beginnings of medicine... Two other worthy books: A Time to Die, by Tom Wicker,... and the publication of this book... Loren Eiseley's All the Strange Hours,"433 The Advisory Board accepted the jury's recommendation and conferred the Pulitzer Prize on Robert N. Butler.434 In 1977 - the jurors' complaints having lasted for years - the Advisory Board decided on a stricter interpretation of the conditions for awarding the prize by limiting entries to books "of high quality and originality." Consequently the jury found, "that the tightening of the definition in the General Non-Fiction category succeeded in eliminating much of the literary detritus submitted in previous years... The entries numbered 165, which is mercifully fewer than in past years... Having eliminated the also-rans," the report continues, "the jury diverged in its recommendation of a Pulitzer Prize-winner and runnerup. Two jurors... agreed on Irving Howe's World of Our Fathers as the recommended 428 429 430 431 432 433 434

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 340. Ibid, pp. I f f . Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 8, 1976, p. 2. Ibid., pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66.

363 winner, with Vol. VI of Anais Nin's Diary as runner-up... For third place the jury again split into different groups." Two jurors "thought highly of William W. Warner's Beautiful Swimmers, a wise and witty book on the Atlantic blue crab of Chesapeake Bay and of the watermen who make their living by crabbing."435 Concurrently to this majority decision one jury member wrote in his minority report: "My choice... is Beautiful Swimmers... the blue crab is an ugly creature but Warner finds beauty in it. He portrays the cycle of its life and the rhythms of its seasons with affection, knowledge and good humor... Beautiful Swimmers is science for the layman, written with a grace and felicity of style that the most accomplished and demanding editor can admire."436 The Advisory Board proved to be impressed by this argumentation, it ignored the majority decision of the jury and gave the Pulitzer Prize to William W. Warner.437 The jury members of the year 1978 reached a unanimous decision, as they all pleaded for awarding the prize to Carl Sagan and his book The Dragons of Eden. The work is, the jury report explains, "an extraordinary and provocative study of the development of the human brain... Whether dealing with undisputed facts or possibly wild notions, the text is illuminated by uncommon literary command, exhibiting the powers of the English language to instruct and entertain. So thoughtful is Sagan's consideration that finally his book is difficult to classify, being perhaps as easily a work of philosophy as it is of science. As literature, it conveys the distinctive aroma of permanence. The Japanese" the report describes the next book numbering among the finalists, "is a masterful work and, for its author Edwin Reischauer, a sort of valedictory... Dispatches is a book of war correspondence... Author Michael Herr delivered these dispatches from Vietnam... A Literature Of Their Own is a comprehensive survey of English women novelists from the Bronte sisters to Doris Lessing... Author Elaine Showalter has authoritative command of her subject and its principals..."438 The Advisory Board conferred the prize on the jury's first choice, Carl Sagan.43^ Although the jurors of 1979 basically came to an agreement as to the finalists, there was dissent about the first position on the list of proposals. "Two books your jury deemed most worthy of the prize," it says in the report to the Advisory Board, "Edward O. Wilson's On Human Nature and Barbara W. Tuchman's A Distant Mirror. Wilson, an authority on insect societies, here extends his theory of sociobiology to human society by combining theories of evolution, ecology and ethology into what amounts to a new discipline. It is an ambitious work of scientific exposition which, though controversial, cannot fail to evoke admiration for Wilson's reasoning, scholarship and originality. In A Distant Mirror Barbara Tuchman explores the 'calamitous1 14th century in Europe when it was struck by the Black Death and seemed marked for apocalyptic punishment... Implicit in this theme is a comparison with our own century of world wars and the shadow of The Bomb. This is Mrs. Tuchman's first venture into historical scholarship, written with mastery of matter and elegance of manner."440 Because of the merits thus ascribed to both of the books, the jury was "divided between Wilson's On Human Nature and Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as its nominee for the prize. Either would make an

435 436 437 438 439 440

General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 20, 1976, pp. 1 f. Minority General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 4, 1977, p. 2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 6,1978, p. 2. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 26, 1978, p. 3.

364 admirable winner," the jurors stressed.441 The Advisory Board decided to award the prize to Edward O. Wilson.442 Without honoring in detail the performance of the 1980 finalists, the report by the jurors did only include the following information: "The top three choices..., in the order of preference, are as follows: 1) Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, by Douglas R. Hof stadter; 2) The Medusa and the Snail, by Lewis Thomas; 3) The Madwoman in the Attic, by Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar."443 On the part of the Advisory Board the Pulitzer Prize was conferred on Douglas R. Hofstadter.444 The jurors of 1981 came as well to a basic agreement on their favorites and "selected four books as strongest contenders for the prize. Mirabile dictu," the report reveals, "all were agreed that it should go to Carl E. Schorske's Fin-de-Siecle Vienna: Politics and Culture, a major and original work of interpretative scholarship. It analyzes the decline of liberal politics in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the emergence of cultural modernism... Schorske presents a fascinating study of the breakdown of a relatively stable, rational, liberal culture and the rise of one in which values became egocentric and intuitive."445 The remaining places among the finalists went to the following books: China Men, by Maxine Hong Kingston; Goodbye, Darkness, by William Manchester; Southerners, by Marshall Frady.446 Because of the high praise for the first choice the Advisory Board did not oppose the jury's vote and declared Carl E. Schorske the winner of the Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction.447 Only two of the three 1982 jurors participated in the judgment work, with the result that "after months of no contact with him," the third jury member "was discharged."448 The two remaining jury members agreed on three finalists, which they "presented to the Board as strictly a matter of alphabetical order without any overt order of choice:... (a) The Soul of a New Machine... In succinct, lucid style, Tracy Kidder leads his readers into a field felt by many to be arcane - the arena of computer technology... The book seizes our attention and gives us more understanding of the kinds of people and technologies that, for good or ill, rapidly are influencing and altering our lives. That gives The Soul of a New Machine an urgent timeliness, (b) Basin and Range... Again and again John McPhee has won high praise for his ability to immerse himself - and his readers with him - in the lives and activities of people of many sorts in many places... In liveliness of style, abundance of information, and philosophical reflection, Basin and Range is an adventure in understanding the surface of our planet and that part which is our own land, (c) Mrs. Harris, by Diana Trilling. A sophisticated, subtle, moral, and humane book... This is a dignified, fascinating, important, and finally unforgettable book."449 The Advisory Board proved to be most impressed by The Soul of a New Machine and bestowed the Pulitzer Prize on Tracy Kidder.450 The jury members of 1983 co-operated well, and as they stated at the beginning of their report, "the decision we reached was unanimous." The report continues: "Our belief 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450

Ibid. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 14, 1980, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 23, 1980, p. 2. Ibid., p. 3. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66. Confidential Note, New York, January 4, 1982, p. 1. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 6,1981, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66.

365 is that the General Nonfiction Award this year should go to Diane Johnson's Terrorists and Novelists... We also greatly admired Jonathan Schell's The Fate of the Earth... and Susan Sheehan's Is There No Place on Earth for Me?... We chose Diane Johnson's book for the superb quality of her writing, the wide range of literary and social criticism these essays contain, the brilliance of the thought behind them... We saw The Fate of the Earth as the first and finest of the dozen books exploring the meaning of nuclear warfare" it is "stylish and thoughtful mirage reporting... Susan Sheehan's book depicts the terrible 17year ordeal of one young woman caught up in the confusion and often the violence of schizophrenia. In her passage through mental institutions her treatment was often as confused as she was..."451 In order to arrive at a decision the Board made use of its fundamental right to develop its own ideas about a possible winner of the prize: one did not adopt the jurors' suggestion for the first place, but awarded the Pulitzer Prize to their third choice, the author Susan Sheehan.452 In 1984 the Board again was not to act on the jury's suggestion. The three jurors "decided to nominate with enthusiasm and unanimity for a Pulitzer Prize Susan Jacoby's Wild Justice. This book," the jury report continues, "is decidedly our first choice for the prize. Our second choice is Conversations With The Enemy: The Story of PFC Robert Garwood. Our third choice is Paul Starr's The Social Transformation of American Medicine."45^ In detail the acknowledgments of each of the three finalists read as follows: "1. Susan Jacoby's Wild Justice... is an arresting, succinct, and shrewd commentary on the fitful and erratic course of justice in the western world as it has operated from classical times to the present day... 2. Conversations With The Enemy... by Winston Groom and Duncan Spencer... is a distinguished work of reportage that judiciously establishes and examines the facts, thoughts, and emotions surrounding the brutal capture and imprisonment of Garwood by the Viet Cong and his trial, many years later, by the Marine Corps as a deserter and collaborator ... 3. Paul Starr's The Social Transformation of American Medicine... presents a comprehensive history that charts the development of American medical practice over the past two centuries and emphasizes the recent phenomenal growth of what is now the health-care industry."454 As in the preceding year, the Board decided in favor of the author who was placed third on the jury's list; therefore the Pulitzer Prize went to Paul Starr.455 The jury members of 1985 acted exactly on the Pulitzer Prize Board's request and worked out a list of three suggested authors, whose names were only organized in alphabetic order without the expression of any preference. In accordance with this principle the list of finalists contained the following titles and names: "Dawn to the West: Japanese Literature in the Modern Era, by Donald Keene... This is a ranging and authoritative study," it said in the report, "that fills in missing cultural elements in the story of the West's artistic, economic and political relations with Japan... Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World, by Jonathan Kwitny... (His) analysis of U.S. intervention in foreign crises demonstrates that efforts to dictate the nature of foreign governments often produce results contrary to the interests of this country... The Good War: An Oral History of World War Two, by Studs Terkel... The nation's most comprehensive and influential oral historian has produced another moving compilation of the sweep of Ameri451 General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 17, 1983, p. 1. 452 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cif., p. 66. 453 General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 9, 1984, p. 1.

454 Ibid, pp. 2 ff. 455 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66.

366 can voices... Once again, Terkel teaches us more about ourselves - individually and as a nation - than we might learn from many other sources combined."456 The Board thought Studs Terkel1 s performance to be outstanding and awarded him the Pulitzer Prize.457 In the eyes of the 1986 jurors several entries were of such "remarkably high quality," that the judges had a hard time to name the following three finalists: "Common Ground, by J. Anthony Lukas... His subject is the busing of Boston schoolchildren following Judge Garrity's 1974 desegregation order. He presents three passionately involved families. Lukas's respectful attention to detail, and his apparent refusal to weight his documentation, give his narrative the vivid and paradoxical fascination of all that most commands our interest in the unfolding of life itself. Habits of the Heart, by Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swindler and Steven M. Tipton... (is) a readable and far-reaching examination of the way Americans make, and talk about making, their choices... Habits of the Heart is both a thorough and thoughtful study by scholars and a vivid account for the common reader... Move Your Shadow, by Joseph Lelyveld... is a first-hand account of South Africa's many and troubled peoples - blacks, coloreds, whites of English descent, and white Africaaners - as he found them just before nonwhite unrest actually broke out onto the streets. The book is often fiery in tone... The book essentially gives voice, movingly, to nonwhite cries."458 This time the Board accepted two of the finalists and equally declared J. Anthony Lukas and Joseph Lelyveld the winners of the Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction.459 In 1987 when the jurors had to judge "more than two-hundred books," very diverging opinions about the first choice were formed by the jury members. "Collectively," they wrote in a letter to the Board, "we winnowed our list of potential nominees to about ten, and finally, after a great deal of discussion, we decided to allow each other to nominate one favorite book. None of the nominated books was a unanimous choice. On the other hand, each represents the strongest choice of one juror, and none of the choices was one that the other jurors found totally unacceptable... The three books are: Rain or Shine, by Cyra McFadden; Rising from the Plains, by John McPhee; Arab and Jew, by David Shipler."460 "Cyra McFadden's Rain or Shine," one of the jurors commended the work, "is such an entertaining story about growing up in a rodeo family that it is easy to ignore her accomplishment... Rain or Shine is a meditation on family ties, and its story is as familiar to all of us as a letter from home."461 "Rising from the Plains," another juror noted about his favorite, "mingles the story of a notable geologist's family with the story of how his protagonist became the preeminent interpreter of Rocky Mountain geology."462 "Arab and Jew," the third juror described the impressions he had gained of his first choice, "is not a book clattering with quotes or theories of political leaders, diplomats or military men... Rather the author gives us, with immense skill and often a poetic force, a personal but scrupulously fair account of how Jews and Arabs dwelling together in Israel view each other and the origins of their attitudes and obsessions."463 The Advisory Board shared the opinion about the latter book and selected David K. Shipler as award winner.464 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464

General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 30, 1984, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 6,1985, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66. Letter to the Pulitzer Prize Board, undated (January 1987), p. 1. General Non-Fiction Jury Report (I), undated (January 1987), p. 1. General Non-Fiction Jury Report (II), undated (January 1987), p. 1. General Non-Fiction Jury Report (III), undated (January 1987), p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66.

367 "The unanimous choices of the 1988 Pulitzer Prize General Non-Fiction jury," their report states, "in alphabetical order, are Daniel Callahan's Setting Limits, James Gleick's Chaos, and Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb."465 In detail the selection of these finalists was justified as follows: "Callahan addresses one of the great dilemmas of our time. Biomedical research makes life extension of the aged possible, at least to a limited degree, but its accelerating cost must be weighed against the need to invest more resources into the quality of life for the population as a whole... Callahan... writes with thoughtful compassion... Chaos is science writing at its best. Gleick has mastered a complex new subject of deep significance at the very moment of its fruition and made it understandable to a broad audience... Chaos sets a high standard for the popular exposition of contemporary science... Rhodes has produced the definitive history of this enormously important subject, utilizing primary research and what may be the last full round of interviews with many of the key participants. The Making of the Atomic Bomb has the ingredients of a classic; at the least it will enjoy a long life as both the best possible introduction to the subject and an important reference work."466 The Advisory Board proved to be completely convinced by the praise for the last-mentioned book about the early history of the nuclear age and declared the author of the work, Richard Rhodes, the winner of the Pulitzer Prize.467 In their report, the members of the jury of 1989 named four finalists, which they presented in alphabetical order as follows: "A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam, by Neil Sheehan,... tells the epic saga of America's involvement in Vietnam through the story of an enigmatic soldier named John Paul Vann. Both the war and the man cloaked themselves in deception... A Bright Shining Lie portrays a man, a war, an era, and a powerful ideology gone desperately wrong. It is, simply, a great book. - Coming of Age in the Milky Way, by Timothy Ferris... In evocative, often luminous prose, he captures at once the baffling mysteries of the void in which we swim and the exhilaration when a few of those dimensions are limned... - Danger and Survival, by McGeorge Bundy... He provides a splendidly researched and detailed history of the role played by nuclear arms since 1938, when fission was discovered... - The Last Farmer, by Howard Kohn... Books about the decline of the family farm in the United States are legion... But Howard Kohn's The Last Farmer is a very different book... It's not an anguished lament for things ignored and things lost, but a careful, clear-eyed testament to what once was and never again can be, by a writer who lived the story he tells."468 The Board decided in favor of Neil Sheehan and his Vietnam-book.469 In 1990 the jurors drew up a list of three finalists, which - in alphabetical order by the author's last name - read as follows: "1) A Peace to End All Peace: Creating the Modern Middle East, 1914-1922, by David Fromkin... His research took him through archival material that has only recently come to light, and he was also able to make use of current scholarship in writing this panoramic and dramatic narrative... 2) Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History belongs to the highest tradition of literate science writing... The evolution of life, it appears, is not an orderly progression from simpler to 'higher' forms,... but a much more chancy process... Wonderful Life describes this new outlook through the lens of a single and significant dig, the 465 466 467 468 469

Letter to the Pulitzer Prize Board, December 16, 1987, p. 1. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 16, 1987, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 14, 1988, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66.

368 Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies... - 3) ... And Their Children After Them: James Agee, Walker Evans, and the Rise and Fall of Cotton in the South, by Dale Maharidge and photographer Michael Williamson... is a poignant and deeply moving work, an intimate account of the lives of the twelve survivors of the original three tenant-farmer families... and their more than one hundred descendants, and an informed discussion of the poverty of the post-cotton rural South."470 The book mentioned last won the Board's approval, with the result that the Pulitzer Prize went to Dale Maharidge and Michael Williamson.471 The jury members of 1991 recommended in their report "the following three entries, listed in alphabetical order by the first author's last name: William deBuys and Alex Harris, River of Traps... describes a time twenty years ago, when the author... and the photographer... were living in a village... in the mountains of northern New Mexico... We admire River of Traps," the jury report continues, "for its strength of language, its clarity of vision, its vivid detail and this complex portrait of... the last generation of Americans to live outside the economic mainstream. - Bert Hölldobler and Edward O. Wilson, The Ants... is the most thorough, comprehensive study of one of the world's major families of social insects ever written and is the culmination of a lifetime of research and observation... The book is more than an exceptional scientific study. It is also eloquent and accessible, a work of literature in the great tradition of nature writing... - John McPhee, Looking for a Ship... McPhee has brought an elegant prose style and a facility with metaphor to a range of nonfiction subjects throughout his career. In the last few years, he has devoted his energies to geological topics, with exceptional results... With Looking for a Ship, McPhee departs from his geological concentration to provide a revealing portrait of the United States' withering merchant marine fleet..., a highly informative work..."472 The Board proved to be most convinced by the book The Ants and awarded the Pulitzer Prize to the two authors of the work, Bert Hölldobler and Edward O. Wilson.473 The jurors of 1992 put the following three books - in alphabetical order by the authors' last names - on their list of nominees: "Broken Vessels, by Andre Dubus - a powerful and poignant look inward by a gifted story-teller who, with this book, reveals himself as an exceptionally knowing, thoughtful and lucid essayist. We were impressed and moved by the wisdom this book offers," the jurors confessed, "and by the strength and beauty of the author's writing... Chain Reaction - The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics, by Thomas and Mary Edsall - a vigorous, penetrating, convincing analysis of what has happened in recent years to America's political life: the splits, the manipulations, the rancor, the divisiveness, the carefully planned manipulations of feeling and allegiance. This is by no means an elegantly written book, but it addresses matters of the greatest import with intelligence and fairness, and for that deserves recognition. The Prize - The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, by Daniel Yergin a broad and deep treatment of a subject of great and continuing significance to the industrial west. The author's treatment of that subject lives up to the word 'epic' he uses in his title: a book of great scope, effectively narrated."474 The Board considered the latter work to be most worthy of the prize and conferred the honor to Daniel Yergin.475 470 471 472 473 474 475

General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 21, 1989, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 66. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 29, 1990, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 66. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 4, 1992, p. 1. Columbia University, The 76th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1992, p. 7.

369 In 1993 the jury members compiled a shortlist of three books, they were: A Chorus of Stones - The Private Life of War, by Susan Griffin. The work was called "a rich and powerful meditation on the male character and its tendency to express itself in an anxious bellicosity." Where the Buffalo Roam, by Anne Matthews, was a "journey to the Great Plains with two visionary land-use planners... It is a conflict of the ideal, pragmatic and reactionary that has worldwide implications - a conflict of the future and the past, but a celebration of the pioneer and explorer in our national character and a tribute to our collective wisdom," the jurors said. Richard Rodriguez was the third candidate for the prize, based on his book Days of Obligation - An Argument with My Mexican Father. The author writes, in the opinion of the jury, "in elegantly elegiac prose about questions of identity that have come to preoccupy the nation."476 This time the Board did not accept any of the three proposals but gave the award to the book Lincoln at Gettysburg The Words that Remade America, by Garry Wills.477 The three nominees for the General Non-Fiction prize of 1994 were: Peter Gay, The Cultivation of Hatred - The Bourgeois Experience, Victoria to Freud; John Lukacs, The End of the Twentieth Century and the End of the Modern Age; and David Remnick, Lenin's Tomb - The Last Days of the Soviet Empire. Gay, in the words of the jury, "attempts to make sense of the culture of 19th-century Europe and America." Lukacs's book was characterized as a "thoughtful and spirited work that demolishes the cliches that so surround our understanding of our troubled and uncertain century." Remnick in his book, the jurors stated, "produced a narrative as compelling as any novel, involving us both with particular lives and larger movements." In an additional note the jurors expressed their opinion that the books by Lukacs and Remnick were a little better than the Gay volume.478 The Board gave the award to David Remnick for his work Lenin's Tomb.419 In 1995 the three finalists were praised by the jurors as follows: John Berendt in his book Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil had "portrayed an eccentric, colorful community, skillfully placed in the context of the deep South... The writing is magical." Sherwin B. Nuland in his work How We Die - Reflections on Life's Final Chapter had "written a courageous, original and personal study of a subject that every reader must face. As a practicing surgeon... he draws here not only on a lifetime's experience of the sick and dying, but also on a lifetime of learning about humanity and about himself." Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch-A Story of Evolution in Our Time was called "a brilliant exposition of Darwinian evolution and its extraordinary documentation by contemporary scientists... Weiner portrays a case study of scientific research, the trials and errors, the dedication, the meticulous observations, the excitement of discovery and the grand vision."48^ The members of the Pulitzer Prize Board declared Jonathan Weiner and his work The Beak of the Finch the winner.481 The jurors of 1996 agreed on the following three finalists in no order of preference: Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea - Evolution and the Meanings of Life; Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land - Facing Europe's Ghosts after Communism; and Lawrence Weschler, Mr. Wilson's Cabinet of Wonder. The work by Dennett, the jury said, "deserves to be read by anyone wishing to understand the modern tapestry of ideas 476 477 478 479 480 481

General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 31, 1992, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The 77th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 13,1993, p. 7. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 27, 1993, p. 1. Columbia University, The 78th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12,1994, p. 7. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 18, 1994, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 79th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 18, 1995, p. 8.

370 bearing on our place and our destiny in a not-so-simple universe." "Many others have written well of Eastern and Central Europe's travail," the jurors stated about the book by Rosenberg, "few have made the lives of human beings living out that travail so believable." Lawrence Weschler's volume deals with David Hildebrande Wilson's "collection of curious and remarkable artifacts... This is truly a wonder-cabinet of a book."482 The Board decided in favor of Tina Rosenberg's book The Haunted Land.4^ In 1997 the three finalists on the jury's shortlist were: Samuel G. Freedman, The Inheritance - How Three Families and America Moved from Roosevelt to Reagan and Beyond. The author, in the words of the jurors, "reads the character of American life with uncommon compassion, and his ability to connect events on the national political scene with their ramifications on the streets" of three cities "is nothing short of remarkable." Next on the list came Richard Kluger's book Ashes to Ashes. Kluger, in the view of the jury, "measures in lively prose the depredations of the tobacco industry. He does what the best non-fiction writers do - marries facts with empathy, reporting with storytelling." In Cynthia Ozick's work Fame and Folly "she writes with a novelist's broad-shouldered characterization, metaphor, irony and narrative brio."484 The award went to Richard Kluger for his book. Ashes to Ashes - America's Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris.4^ When the jurors of 1998 compiled their shortlist, they mentioned first Tared Diamond and his book Guns, Germs, and Steel - The Fates of Human Societies. "Lucidly, even informally written," the jury report states, "this is a book that tells us more about ourselves - not as individuals but as members of a species - than we thought we knew." Next on the list came Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air - A Personal Account of the Mount Everest Disaster. This book the jurors said, "originally intended as a journalistic account of a climb to the 'top of the world,' instead became a story of death, survival and courage and an unflinching criticism of the trivialization of Mount Everest." Steven Pinker in his volume How the Mind Works, in the view of the jury, "is able to explain to nonscientists, through witty and highly literate prose, the results of the most sophisticated and rigorous scientific research."486 The winner was Guns, Germs, and Steel by Tared M. Diamond.487 In 1999 these works and their authors were among the finalists: Crime and Punishment in America, by Elliott Currie; The Nurture Assumption - Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do, by Judith Rich Harris; and Annals of the Former World, by John McPhee, who received the award.488 The jurors of 2000 selected these finalists: Embracing Defeat - Japan in the Wake of World War II, by John W. Dower; The Elegant Universe - Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory, by Brian Greene; and Living on the Wind Across the Hemisphere with Migratory Birds, by Scott Weidensaul. The Pulitzer Prize Board bestowed the General Non-Fiction award on John W. Dower's book Embracing Defeat,**® Since the definition of this prize always was relatively broad, this resulted in the fact that over the years a wide spectrum of book contents could be honored. 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489

General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 4,1996, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 80th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 9, 1996, p. 8. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, December 16,1996, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The 81st annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 7, 1997, p. 7. General Non-Fiction Jury Report, January 5,1998, pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The 82nd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 14, 1998, p. 7. Columbia University, The 83rd annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 12, 1999, p. 7. Columbia University, The 84th annual Pulitzer Prizes..., New York, April 10, 2000, p. 7.

371 13.

PRIZES FOR AREAS OF BELLES-LETTRES

In the original plan of award there was also a prize for merits in the field of literature. It was called "Novel" and later the category was renamed to "Fiction." In addition, in the early Twenties, a prize for "Poetry" was added to the list of awards. As one author remarks, these literary prizes were thought for "encouragement to writers"1 outside of the journalistic areas.

13.1

Novel Award

The definition for this prize group was as follows: Annually, "for the American novel published during the year which shall best present the wholesome atmosphere of American life, and the highest standard of American manners and manhood."2 Before the first competition for the award was opened there was some struggle about the wording "wholesome" instead of "whole." The Advisory Board of the School of Journalism finally accepted the term "wholesome" which stayed for about one decade.3 When the first Pulitzer Prize Novel jury came together in the spring of 1917 to determine a prize-winner based on the novels published in the year before, the following situation arose: "There were only six applicants for the prize," as the report of the jurors indicates verbatim, "one of whom sent not a printed book but a manuscript, which fails to meet the requirement of publication during the year. Of the five books submitted in competition, all but one seem to us unworthy of consideration for the prize. We are unanimously of the opinion, however, that the merits of this book, though considerable, are no greater than that of several other novels, which though not included in the formal applications, have been taken into consideration by us in arriving at a verdict. We recommend," the jurors wrote furthermore, "that the award be withheld this year."4 The Advisory Board and the Trustees of Columbia University accepted the verdict of the jury and decided on "no award" in the novel category.^ In 1918 the jury report does not impart any information on the number of contestants. It was stated concisely in the jury report "that the majority of the Committee award the Pulitzer Prize for the best novel of 1917 to His Family, by Ernest Poole. The Committee unites in according honorable mention to Bromley Neighborhood, by Alice Brown."6 The Advisory Board as well as the Trustees accepted parts of the jury's proposal and for the first time awarded a Pulitzer Prize in the novel category, which went to Ernest Poole.7 With regard to the prize-winning book by Poole, Hohenberg is of the opinion that it "had not made anything like the impression of Poole's earlier and more successful work, The Harbor, which was similar in spirit to the Edward Bellamy-Jack London type 1 Carlos Baker, Fiction Awards, in: Columbia Library Columns (New York), Vol. VI/No. 3, May 1957, pp. 30 f. 2 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes. A History of the Awards in Books, Drama, Music, and Journalism, New York-London 1974, p. 55. 3 Ibid., pp. 55 ff. 4 Novel Jury Report, May 8, 1917, pp. 1 f. 5 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes 1917-1991, New York 1991, p. 51. 6 Novel Jury Report, April 10, 1918, p. 1. 7 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51.

372 of sentimental Socialism. So, while His Family carried off the award, there wasn't much of a stir about it."8 The same jurors as in the two preceding years were once again in office in 1919. The chairman of the jury wrote to the President of Columbia University on behalf of all members: "I hereby report that the Committee, after careful consideration, has reluctantly reached the conclusion, that no one of the novels... merits this distinction."9 The Advisory Board had practically already accepted this recommendation, when one of the members of the jury approached the administration of Columbia University, without previous notice, with nothing less than a revision of the initial jury vote camouflaged in the form of a question: "Is it too late to give the novel prize to Booth Tarkington's The Magnificent Ambersons?"10 The Columbia President consequently "fired off telegrams to each member of the Advisory Board and drew unanimous approval for The Magnificent Ambersons."^ N. Booth Tarkington received the Pulitzer Prize for best novel of the previous year.12 The jury acting in 1920 had some new members. As can be quoted from its report, this jury was "of the opinion that 'no award' should be made,"13 and this was, in the end, also accepted by the Advisory Board and the Trustees.14 Before the decision of the jury was reached, however, the discussions turned into a remarkable controversy, caused by a new juror: "He had thought," as Hohenberg reconstructs the situation, "of recommending Joseph Hergesheimer's Java Head for the prize until he re-read the terms of the Plan of Award," that contained in place of Pulitzer's original wording 'whole' the term 'wholesome.'15 In a note to his chairman the jury member agreed that the Hergesheimer novel "doesn't at all obviously conform" to the conditions of the award and protested. But the Board decided to bestow "no award" in this prize category.lf* The members of the jury in 1921 also differed in their opinions on who should win that year's Pulitzer Prize. H. Sinclair Lewis's book Main Street, one of the most controversial volumes of the previous year, was discussed in the jury, but the committee's chairman held the book to be "vicious and vengeful." He expressed in the report: "All the novels I have read recently are lacking in style, workmanship. I cannot vote a prize to any of them." But the Board overturned the jury's proposal to give "no award" and decided by a split vote to give the prize to Edith N. Wharton's The Age of Innocence, which also had been mentioned in the report.17 After the public announcement of the winner, the bestowal of the award to Edith Wharton evoked a fierce debate as soon as the circumstances leading to the decision were made public.18 The jurors of 1922, however, had no difficulties in reaching the unanimous recommendation "that Booth Tarkington's Alice Adams is the best novel of 1921 which can be construed as coming under the terms of the Pulitzer competition. We accordingly recommend it for the Pulitzer novel prize."19 The Advisory Board as well as the Trustees agreed 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 57. Novel Jury Report, April 22,1919, p. 1. Letter to Frank D. Fackenthal, Provost of Columbia University, May 20, 1919, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 57 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, April 29, 1920, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 55. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 58 f. Ibid., pp. 59 f. Novel Jury Report, April 24, 1922, p. 1.

373 and honored N. Booth Tarkington with the award without any contradiction, although he had already won the same prize once before just three years earlier.20 The jury of 1923 saw only slight changes in personnel compared to the previous year. It also arrived at a common suggestion. Yet the jurors' vote, penned by the chairman of the jury, reads as follows: "I beg to report that the Committee recommends for the Pulitzer Prize to be awarded for the best American novel..., One of Ours by Miss Willa Gather. I might perhaps add that this recommendation is made without enthusiasm. The Committee, as I understand its feeling, assumes that the Trustees of the Fund desire that award should be made each year. In that case, we are of the opinion that Miss Gather's novel, imperfect as we think it in many respects, is yet the most worth while of any in the field."21 Once again, similar to the situation two years earlier, a novel by Lewis was passed over, because the reservations about the author and his work had been too strong. Thus Willa S. Gather received the Pulitzer Prize,22 this time without developing into a controversy. In 1924, when the jury consisted of the same members as in the year before, the award proposal sent to the administration of Columbia University once again seemed to be lacking in conviction. In a note written by the chairman of the jury it was stated that "the committee on the Pulitzer Prize has arrived at the following decision: first, that in its opinion there is no book outstanding enough to merit a Prize this year, but that, secondly, if it is deemed that a prize should be awarded anyhow, the committee would name Margaret Wilson's The Able McLaughlins."2^ The Advisory Board as well as the Trustees, however, had no doubts that The Able Mclaughlins should win the Pulitzer Prize and had no problems in giving the honor to Margaret W. Wilson.24 There was once again dissent in 1925, when the jurors stated in their report: "The jury has come to no full agreement. The issue hangs, however, between three novels: Joseph Hergesheimer's Balisand, Edna Ferber's So Big, and Lawrence Stalling's Plumes." One juror favored Edna Ferber's So Big. Another preferred Balisand but voted to split the award between Balisand and So Big. The third jury member also pleaded that the award be split between Hergesheimer's Balisand and Ferber's So Big.25 The Advisory Board and the Trustees decided against the votes of the second and third jurors and declared Edna Ferber's So Big sole winner of the Pulitzer Prize for novel.26 1926 turned out to be a special year in the history of the Pulitzer Prize for novel. A jury that was made up of three new members wrote in its report, "that Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis, is the novel best deserving the award... In the opinion of the Committee, several novels are worthy competitors, this be especially true of The Smiths by Janet Fairbanks, and Porgy by DuBose Heyward."27 After H. Sinclair Lewis had been unsuccessful twice in the preceding years, he was now to be honored by winning the Pulitzer Prize in the novel category.28 "That prize I must refuse," Sinclair Lewis wrote among other things to Columbia University, "and my refusal would be meaningless unless 1 explained the reasons. All prizes, like all titles, are dangerous... The Pulitzer Prize for 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, April 3, 1923, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, April 1, 1924, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, April 3, 1925, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, March 15,1926, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51.

374 Novels is peculiarly objectionable because the terms of it have been constantly and grievously misrepresented..."29 The $1,000 check, which Lewis had returned, was put back in the Pulitzer Prize Fund.30 Nevertheless, H. Sinclair Lewis is listed as official award-winner of 1926 in the annals of the Pulitzer Prize.31 Yet Lewis, who a few years later did not refuse to accept the Nobel Prize for Literature, indirectly brought about a change that was effectual for the Pulitzer Prize from 1927 onwards: "The Advisory Board," Hohenberg writes, "quietly returned to the original wording of the... award, as Joseph Pulitzer had set it down in his will. The insistence on 'wholesome' fiction, in theory at least, was dropped in favor of Pulitzer's specification for an American novel that best presented the 'whole atmosphere' of American life and the 'highest standard of American manners and manhood.' Hopefully, in this new dispensation, the jurors turned to one of the younger and uncontroversial American novelists, Louis Bromfield, and recommended his third novel, Early Autumn, for the 1927 award."32 The Advisory Board and the Trustees accepted Louis Bromfield as best novelist of the previous year.33 The jurors of 1928 announced in their report "the unanimous nomination of Thornton Wilder's The Bridge of San Luis Rey, as the recipient of this year's award. The decision is based on the opinion of the Committee," the report continues, "that this piece of fiction is not only an admirable example of literary skill in the art of fiction, but also possesses a philosophic import and a spiritual elevation which greatly increases its literary value."3^ It can be inferred from an additional paper by the jurors that the following books were also among the finalists: Islanders, by Helen Hull; A Yankee Passional, by Samuel Ornitz; The Grandmothers, by Glenway Wescott; and Black April, by Julia M. Peterkin.35 "The jury's choice for 1928," Hohenberg underlines, "had nothing to do with American life or American manners and manhood, but the Advisory Board quickly accepted it," since "the critics already had hailed a major new talent" in Thornton Niven Wilder, who received the Pulitzer Prize of 1928.36 He was awarded the prize for a story that was set in old Peru. "One result of the... Jury's successful recommendation of a story about Peru," Hohenberg writes, "was still another change in the... wording of the terms of the award. The insistence on the 'highest standard of American manners and manhood' was dropped. Instead, in a general revision of the Plan of Award that took effect for the 1929 prize season, the requirement in fiction called for a prize 'for the American novel published during the year, preferably one which shall best present the whole atmosphere of American life.'"37 Now the jurors had plenty of scope for interpretation, and in 1929 they decided in favor of Victim and Victor by John R. Oliver. "The Committee's choice," as it reads verbatim in the jury report, "is made on the ground that this novel is of fine quality as a piece of literary work, ... It may interest... to know that Scarlet Sister Mary by Julia Peterkin came close in our estimation to the winning book."38 This time the Advisory 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Letter to the Pulitzer Prize Committee at Columbia University, May 6, 1926, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 86. Cf. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 87; and Novel Jury Report, March 30, 1927, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, March 6, 1928, p. 1. Letter to Frank D. Fackenthal, Columbia University, March 7, 1928, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 87. AW., p. 88. Novel Jury Report, March 13, 1929, pp. 1 f.

375 Board and the Trustees did not follow the suggestion of the jury and opted instead for Julia M. Peterkin and her book Scarlet Sister Mary.39 The jury of 1930 had problems in agreeing on a clear favorite for the prize. "Effectively," the report indicates, "the choice of the committee is narrowed down to three books: Laughing Boy, by Oliver La Farge; Look Homeward, Angel, by Thomas Wolfe; and It's a Great War, by Mary Lee." Whereas one juror chose the book by Thomas Wolfe, a second one favored the novel Laughing Boy, and the third jury member deemed It's a Great War outstanding.40 But it was stated in the report that "the members of the committee are not quite in accord, but have individually expressed their willingness to compound their differences by voting for Laughing Boy by Oliver La Farge."41 The members of the Advisory Board found no difficulty in agreeing on Laughing Boy, a choice the university Trustees accepted.42 This is how, in the end, the prize for 'best novel' went to Oliver H. La Farge.43 Just before the opening of the judging for the 1931 prize, still another change in the terms of the award for fiction was suggested. It now should be defined as follows: "For the best novel published during the year by an American author."44 While the Advisory Board was still dealing with this proposal, the jury took up its work and put three books on its short list: The Deepening Stream, by Dorothy Canfield; Years of Grace, by Margaret Ayer Barnes; and The Great Meadow, by Elizabeth Madox Roberts. In the end the jurors ranked Years of Grace first on their list of suggestions, "because of its vivid and interesting presentation of the change in character and mores throughout three generations of an American family."45 The Advisory Board as well as the Trustees endorsed this vote and therefore the Pulitzer Prize in the category 'novel' went to Margaret Ayer Barnes.46 In 1932 when the jurors selected from the submissions on hand, the jury regarded "as its first choice The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck. Two other books were favorably considered... Willa Gather's Shadow on the Rock and Robin E. Spencer's The Lady Who Came to Stay... Preference has been given to The Good Earth," the jury explained its choice "for its epic sweep, its distinct and moving characterization, its sustained story-interest, its simple and yet richly colored style... As a minor consideration, the Committee also took into account the fact that Miss Gather has already received the Pulitzer Prize. This fact was, however, not determining."4^ As both the Advisory Board and the Trustees were convinced by the jury's argumentation, the award was given to Pearl S. Buck.48 The jurors, who had to decide on the award in 1933, explained briefly, when they made it known in their report that there was an "agreement upon The Store by Thomas S. Stribling."49 Four other novels had also made the jury's shortlist. Yet The Store, as it was stated verbatim "was selected chiefly because of its sustained interest, and because of the convincing and comprehensive picture it presents of life in an inland Southern com39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. oil., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, March 10, 1930, pp. 1 f. Ibid., p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 90. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 91. Novel Jury Report, March 26, 1931, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, March 14,1932, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, March 16, 1933, p. 1.

376 munity during the middle eighties of the last century. I think," the chairman of the jury continued, "that the fact that the same author, Mr. T. S. Stribling, gave us another good book, The Forge, a few years ago, was a favoring circumstance, but did not definitely influence our decision..."50 Because, as Hohenberg illustrates, "there was little argument over the... selection, The Store,"51 in the end the Pulitzer Prize for 'best novel' was given to Thomas S. Stribling.52 In 1934 the jury could not reach unanimity in its votes, and so it suggested "as its majority choice A Watch in the Night, by Helen C. White. The majority of the committee," the report continues, "considered as a close second Lamb in His Bosom, by Caroline Miller, and as a good third No More Sea, by Wilson Follett. A Watch in the Night is an historical novel of accurate background, sharply etched characters, and highly dramatic plot. Interest is sustained to the end from the collision of human motives and passions independent of the special issues historically involved."53 That the decision of the jurors was not unanimous turned out to be a handicap, because the Advisory Board did not join in the vote for the book ranking first on the jury's list, but instead recommended to the Trustees that the Pulitzer Prize be awarded to Caroline Miller's Lamb in His Bosom.54 And this is what finally came to pass.55 When the jurors discussed their favorites for 1935, they could not reach a unanimous vote in that year as well. "It seems impossible for your jury," it reads in their report, "to agree this year on anything but that there is, in their opinion, no outstanding novel. Although their choice is by no means unanimous, they do, however, between them recommend to the consideration of the Board the following novels: William W. Haines: Slim...; Ruth Suckow: The Folks...; Josephine Johnson: Now in November...; William R. Burnett: Goodbye to the Past...; Albert Halper: The Foundry...; Robert Cantwell: Land of Plenty...; Louis Dodge: The American ...; Stark Young: So red the rose..."56 Hohenberg relates that the Advisory Board "chose Miss Johnson's novel but did not elaborate on the process by which it was selected."57 Thus the Pulitzer Prize went to Josephine W. Johnson for her work Now in November,58 For the Pulitzer Prize of 1936 the Plan of Award was changed once again, specifying that the award should henceforth go to "a distinguished novel published during the year by an American author, preferably dealing with American life."59 Among the ninetynine books submitted for the 1936 prize were Thomas Wolfe's Of Time and the River, Humphrey Cobb's Paths of Glory, John Steinbeck's Tortilla Flat, and Ellen Glasgow's Vein of Iron. None of these, however, was among the first seven books that were recommended in order by the Fiction Jury.60 For on the jury's list Honey in the Horn, by Harold L. Davis ranked first, followed by This Body the Earth, by Paul Green; Time out of Mind, by Rachel Field; Ollie Miss, by Lowell L. Balcom; Deep Dark River, by Robert

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Letter to Frank D. Fackenthal, Columbia University, March 19, 1933, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 92. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, March 17,1934, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 136. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 51. Novel Jury Report, March 18,1935, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 138. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 138. Ibid.

377

WITH «WIND fy MRGÄKET MITCHELL Pulitzer Prize for Novel, 1937

378 Rylee; and Blessed is the Man, by Louis Zara.61 The Board followed the advice of the jury and declared Harold L. Davis winner of the Pulitzer Prize for best novel.62 In 1937 the jurors decided to present a list of suggestions consisting of six titles which reads as follows: Gone With the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell; The Last Puritan, by George Santayana; Three Bags Full, by Roger Burlingame; Mountain Path, by Harriette Simpson; Yang and Yin, by Alice Tisdale Hobart; and Drums along the Mohawk, by Walter D. Edmond. "No comment on the first two novels seems called for," the jury wrote, adding: "Obviously, the Jury recommends them, not as best sellers but as deservedly best sellers."63 "The Advisory Board, like the American public," as Hohenberg illuminates the decision-making process, "wasted no time in embracing Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler, the endearing figures in the most popular and enduring of all Civil War romances."64 Gone With the Wind earned Margaret M. Mitchell the Pulitzer Prize for 'best novel.'65 A few years later the film adaption was also honored by winning several Academy Awards.66 The jury that went to work in the spring of 1938 agreed by majority vote "upon the following points: 1. That in its opinion The Late George Apley by John P. Marquand clearly deserves the award. 2. That if, for any reason, this recommendation should be rejected the two novels next most deserving of the honor are The Sound of Running Feet by Josephine Lawrence, and Northwest Passage by Kenneth Roberts. The Late George Apley," as the jury justified its first choice, "is a novel of unusual finish... The book is remarkable not only for the keenness of the satire but, almost equally, for the broad, sympathetic understanding exhibited by the author, who is able to present his personages from their own as well as from his point of view."67 These arguments also convinced the Advisory Board and therefore the Pulitzer Prize for novel was given to John P. Marquand.68 The jury of 1939 also reached unanimously one clear proposal, after considering these five novels during its final discussion: The Yearling, by Marjorie Rawlings; All This and Heaven Too, by Rachel Field; Black is My True Love's Hair, by Elizabeth Madox Roberts; May Flavin, by Myron Birnig; and Renown, by Frank O. Hough. "The jury is... unanimously agreed," as it reads in the jury report, "that its preference for The Yearling is sufficiently strong to justify it in expressing the hope that that novel will be selected."69 This reasoning, according to Hohenberg, "won the Board's approval."70 So Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings received the Pulitzer Prize for her novel The Yearling^ The jurors of 1940 made it perfectly clear in their report: "We are unanimously agreed to recommend as our first choice The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. Despite the fact that it is marred by certain artistic blemishes, this novel has, we believe, excellences which make it the most powerful and significant of all the works submitted for our consideration." In addition to this novel the following books were also on the list of finalists: Escape, by Ethel Vance; To the End of the World, by Helen White; Seasoned Timber, by 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Novel Jury Report, March 15,1936, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Novel Jury Report, March 15,1937, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 139 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Cf. Richard Shale (Ed.), Academy Awards, New York 1978, pp. 334 ff. Novel Jury Report, March 11, 1938, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Novel Jury Report, March 13, 1939, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 140. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52.

379 Dorothy Canfield; and Night Riders, by Robert Penn Warren.72 "When the report was distributed to the Advisory Board," Hohenberg found out, "two... wrote letters to try to influence their colleagues against The Grapes of Wrath... In the end" they were "unable to stop Steinbeck any more... When the award was voted by the university Trustees and made public, it was received with universal approval... The Pulitzer Prize served to confirm John Steinbeck's stature as a major American novelist,"73 who more than two decades later was also to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.74 To the jury of 1941, which partly consisted of new members, sifting through the submissions at hand the exhibits it seemed "at first like a rather easy and uncontroversial year," since a magazine had beforehand given the impression that the prize would go to Ernest Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls. Yet, as Hohenberg explains, "the Pulitzer jurors, however, didn't see it that way. They unanimously recommended two coequal... prizes for Conrad Richter's novel of American pioneer life, The Trees, and Walter V. Tilburgh Clark's rousing Western, The Ox-Bow Incident. They put down the Hemingway... book... as secondary to their first choices."75 Hohenberg discovered that "the report ran into heavy weather almost as soon as the Advisory Board met... The newspaper members of the Board rose in revolt against the jury's choices and voted for the Hemingway book... But the Board also turned down the jury's report as well," voting to give "no award" in the novel category,76 which was later on to be confirmed by the Trustees as well.77 The jury of 1942 admitted in its report that it "found its task made very difficult by the fact that none of the novels brought to its attention seemed of really outstanding merit or equal to many at least of those which have received the prize in the past... But since it is probably inadvisable to omit the award for two successive years, a list of possibilities is here submitted," consisting of: Windswept, by Mary Ellen Chase; The Great Big Doorstep, by E. P. O'Donnell; Storm, by George Stewart; and Green Centuries, by Caroline Gordon.7** Faced with the jury's irresolution, Hohenberg relates, "at least two members of the Advisory Board jumped into the breach with alternative suggestions," recommending Upton Sinclair's book Dragon's Teeth as well as Ellen Glasgow's In This Our Life, both of which were not even mentioned in the jury report.7^ The Advisory Board swept aside the jury report and recommended Ellen A. Glasgow's novel of Southern life for the prize.80 The jurors of 1943 reached an unanimous decision saying in their report: "It is the judgment... that the novel most worthy of the Pulitzer Prize is Upton Sinclair's Dragon's Teeth. This book appeared first on the list of two committee members, and was the second choice of the third member." Other books like The Just and the Unjust, by James Cozzens as well as The Valley of Decision, by Marcia Davenport were also taken into consideration.81 Yet the Advisory Board as well as the Trustees decided in favor of 72 Novel Jury Report, March 15,1940. p. 1. 73 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., pp. 142 f. 74 Cf. Werner Martin, Verzeichnis der Nobelpreisträger 1901-1984, Munich - New York - London - Paris 1985, p. 269. 75 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 143 f. and Novel Jury Report, March 14, 1941, p. 1. 76 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 144 f. 77 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. 78 Novel Jury Report, March 16, 1942, pp. 1 f. 79 John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 146. 80 Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. 81 Novel Jury Report, March 10, 1943, p. 1.

380 Upton Sinclair's book,82 that already had been mentioned as a possible winning entry in the year before, but was eligible only in 1943 because of its year of publishing.83 With Upton B. Sinclair Jr., as Hohenberg writes, "the oldest and most formidable critic of the American press"84 was being honored. In 1944 the jurors tried out a special mode of evaluation by giving out points to determine the winner. As a result the following four books appeared on the jury's short list: Indigo, by Christine Weston; A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, by Betty Smith; So Little Time, by John P. Marquand; and Journey in the Dark, by Martin Flavin.85 Based on the jury's criteria of evaluation the book by Martin Flavin got eight points, followed by the novel written by Christine Weston with seven and John Marquand's book with six points. In their report the jurors pointed out that Marquand had already won a Pulitzer Prize six years earlier and thus perhaps was not eligible. With regard to the novel by Christine Weston they noted that its theme was related to India and therefore could not necessarily be considered "American literature," whereas Journey in the Dark was, in a way, "American to the bone."86 The Board chose the Martin A. Ravin book as winner.87 The jury of 1945 also proceeded with said mode of evaluation. After adding up the points given to those books the jurors found most prizeworthy, the novels ranked in the top three were as follows: Colcorton, by Edith Pope; A Bell for Adano, by John Hersey; and The History of Rome Hanks, by Joseph Pennell. As each of the three jurors had an individual notion about the potential prizewinner, they went into details regarding their reasons, and there seemed to be indication that A Bell for Adano was leading marginally.88 But John Mersey's book, as discovered by John Hohenberg, "ran into difficulty before the Advisory Board. There, one of the members, in an outburst of patriotic wrath, denounced the novel." But the Board's majority didn't follow him. The Pulitzer Novel Prize was voted to A Bell for Adano,^ and so the prestigious award went to John R. Hersey.90 In 1946, the first year after World War II, the jury picked out three finalists without, however, agreeing on a clear favorite. The jurors' opinions differed substantially on Glenway Wescott's Apartment in Athens, Dan Wickenden's The Wayfarers as well as Richard Wright's autobiography Black Boy, which one member of the jury could not acknowledge as a novel. Faced with this situation, Hohenberg writes, "the Advisory Board passed the award for lack of definitive guidance from the jurors,"9^ and so once again "no award" was written down in the annals of the Pulitzer Prize.92 In contrast to this, the jurors of 1947 presented a unanimous choice, that in the end was to win the Pulitzer Prize: "All the King's Men, by Robert Penn Warren," Hohenberg relates, "was a welcome change from the uncertainties of the war years. It was the complex story of the rise and fall of an opportunistic country lawyer who became the virtual dictator of a Southern State and came to an untimely end through assassination. To many, the novel seemed to be a fictional retelling of the tragedy of Huey Long, the 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 146. ibid., p. 198. Novel Jury Report, March 14, 1944, pp. 1 f. Ibid., p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Novel Jury Report, March 14, 1945, pp. 1 ff. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 198. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 198. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52.

381 Louisiana 'Kingfish'... The critics hailed the selection"93 of Robert Penn Warren's book after it had received the Pulitzer Prize.94 This was the last time an award was given in the Novel category.

13.2

Fiction Award

In 1948 a new award category used the term "Fiction" instead of "Novel," and the category's definition was as follows: "For distinguished fiction published in book form during the year by an American author, preferably dealing with American life."95 This prize for the first time made short stories eligible for the award. The jury selected the following titles: The Big Sky, by Alfred B. Guthrie Jr.; Knock on any Door, by Willard Motley; The Garretson Chronicle, by Gerald W. Brace; The Stoic, by Theodore Dreiser; and Tales of the South Pacific, by James A. Michener.96 Although Michener's volume of short stories only ranked fifth on the shortlist of the jury, one of the jurors strongly stood up for it. Then the members of the Advisory Board also pleaded for the unknown newcomer and little by little convinced their colleagues.97 Thus in the end James A. Michener was given the 1948 Pulitzer Prize for fiction.98 His Tales of the South Pacific was soon to become the basis for the musical South Pacific, which would also be honored with a Pulitzer Prize two years later.99 The jury of 1949 drew up the following list of four literary works it regarded as prizeworthy: Guard of Honor, by James Gould Cozzens; The Naked and the Dead, by Norman Mailer; The Ides of March, by Thornton Wilder; and The Young Lions, by Irwin Shaw. "The... listing is not made in order of preference," the jury report explains, "but each of the books recommended received the vote of at least two of the three jurors; the first two titles were unanimous choices."100 Based on these remarks, as Hohenberg interprets the report, "it came down to a great newcomer, Mailer, with a tough and uncompromising war novel that was one of the best for World War II, and the wellestablished Cozzens..."101 The Board decided in favor of James Gould Cozzens, who was already much better known to the public.102 The jurors of 1950 prepared a list of merely three suggestions which, without any comments, contained the following titles: The Way West, by Alfred B. Guthrie Jr.; The Brave Bulls, by Tom Lea; and Hunter's Horn, by Harriette Arnow.103 According to Hohenberg, "there was little argument" in the Board as to this ranking. Thus it was accepted and A. B. Guthrie Jr. was announced winner of the Pulitzer Prize.104 One year later, in 1951, when a jury of only two went to work, these two made only one sole proposal, namely John Hersey's The Wa//,105 "which dealt with Hitler's extermination 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 198 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Quoted from John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 201. Fiction Jury Report, March 23,1948, pp. 1 ff. Quoted from John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 201. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Ibid., p. 55. Fiction Jury Report, March 14, 1949, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 202. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Fiction Jury Report, April 5, 1950, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Fiction Jury Report, March 23, 1951, p. 1.

382 of the jews," Hohenberg adds and completes: "The jurors had told the Board that they believed only the Hersey book was worthy of the prize that year. When... asked for alternatives, they proposed Conrad Richter's The Town, Robert Penn Warren's World Enough and Time, and Max Steele's Debbie, but they still insisted on The Wall even though it did not deal with the American scene... The Advisory Board was not impressed. For its own reasons, it voted for The Town"106 and thus the award went to Conrad M. Richter.107 The two jurors for 1952 judged the submitted novels quite differently. Whereas one of them observed at the beginning of his part of the report, "I do not find among these books... any one that seems to be a really great novel,"108 the other one declared: "Among the novels published in 1951 there were about 35 books that held my attention as being especially noteworthy."109 Based on these opinions it cannot come as a surprise that the two jurors could not agree on a joint suggestion. Whereas the first juror favored The Caine Mutiny, by Herman Wouk, the other one pleaded for Jenkins' Ear, by Odell and Willard Shepard.110 The Advisory Board gave the Pulitzer Prize to Herman Wouk's book The Caine Mutiny.^1 As it had happened in the previous year, the two jurors of 1953 had completely different notions of prizeworthiness. "I have read the seventy-nine novels sent to me," one of them wrote in his report, "my choice for first place is Jefferson Selleck, by Carl Jonas. This young man will bear watching... All of his ways of thinking arise from the deepest depths of American live."112 In a ranking of altogether eighteen novels that made his shortlist, he placed fourteenth the title which the other juror ranked first, Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the 5ea.113 "Although short," this juror praised Hemingway's work, "this book contains all the elements that make a novel excellent... It is well written, well planned, and possesses the beauty that only a real work of art can have. What perhaps... is most important in the book is its universality."114 Even the Dean of the School of Journalism, a member of the Advisory Board, lobbied for Hemingway, and the other Board members did not object.1 ^ So Ernest Hemingway won the Pulitzer Fiction award for The Old Man and the Sea.116 One year later Hemingway also received the Nobel Prize for Literature.117 A reconstituted jury of 1954 was, according to Hohenberg, "in such a disagreement that neither duplicated the other in any of the first five books each recommended. One juror liked Ramey by Jack D. Ferris and The Sands of Karakorum by James R. Ullman while the other recommended, as his first two, Myron Brinig's The Street of the Three Friends and Wright Morris's The Deep Sleep. One juror alone mentioned Saul Bellow's The Adventures ofAugie AfarcA,"118 whereas this book was not even mentioned in the report of the other two jurors. Confronted with the diverging opinions of its two jurors as well as with the intricate situation that had developed because of their disagreement, the 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 202 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Fiction Jury Report, undated (March 1952), p. 1. Preliminary Report, March 11,1952, p. 1. Fiction Jury Report, March 10,1952, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Fiction Jury Report, March 24, 1953, pp. 1, 5. Ibid., p. 15. Choices for the Pulitzer on the Novel, undated (March 1953), p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 203 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Cf. Werner Martin, Verzeichnis der Nobelpreisträger 1901-1984, op. cit., p. 259. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 204.

383 Advisory Board decided to plead for "no award" and this decision was also supported by the Trustees. ^9 1955 not only saw a reconstituted Advisory Board with new ideas,120 but also a new jury for the Pulitzer Prize Fiction category. Probably alluding to the dissent between jurors of previous years the report of that year's jury reads: "Believe it or not, we both voted for the same book: Milton Lett's The Last Hunt. To us, this seemed a fresh treatment of a significant chapter in the history of America... In second place we would put William Faulkner's A Fable. There are portions of this novel which seemed to us to be close to greatness but... we are agreed that it fails ultimately because of its inability to communicate with the reader... We... hope you will feel that our selection of The Last Hunt is a worthy one and the right one."121 The Board, however, was not at all of this opinion and gave the Pulitzer Prize for fiction to William Faulkner,122 who, six years earlier, had already won the Nobel Prize for Literature.123 The same jurors were also appointed in 1956 to select in the Fiction category. The previous year, the two members of the jury stated at the beginning of their report, "was a far better than average year in American fiction, and the task of making a decision among the eighty novels regarded by their publishers as strong enough to be candidates for the Pulitzer award in fiction would have been far more difficult than it was had not one of them been head and shoulders above all others. That one is MacKinlay Kantor's Andersonville. The jury cannot recommend it too strongly for the award... When compared with Andersonville the runners-up in the field seem far behind. In our opinion these would be: John O'Hara's Ten North Frederick... (and) Robert Penn Warren's Band of Angels."12^ In view of the praise for his book Andersonville the Board declared MacKinlay Kantor winner in the Fiction category.125 In 1957 it was stated in the jury report that the previous year "was a poor one for the American novel. More than ninety novels were sent to the jury as candidates for the Pulitzer Award in fiction, yet most of them could not be regarded by any stretch of the imagination as serious contenders for that award or for any other... Outstanding among these was Elizabeth Spencer's The Voice at the Back Door. The jury recommends it for the fiction award... The only possible contender for the award other than The Voice at the Back Door would be in the jury's view The Last Hurrah by Edwin O'Connor."126 Yet the Board, Hohenberg found out, "couldn't work up much enthusiasm for either work after a thorough reading of the report"127 and decided on "no award."128 A new jury went to work in the Pulitzer Prize Fiction category of 1958. "This has been a good year for the American novel," as it can be read in the jurors' report. "A number of works, such as A Death in the Family by James Agee, The Wapshot Chronicle by John Cheever, The Assistant by Bernard Malamud, The Town by William Faulkner, The Weather of February by Hollis Summers, The Goblins of Eros by Warren Eyster, The Velvet Horn by Andrew Lytle, all possess kinds of distinction." But the jury's 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Cf. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 254 ff. Fiction Jury Report, February 15, 1955, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Cf. Werner Martin, Verzeichnis der Nobelpreisträger 1901-1984, op. cit., p. 248. Fiction Jury Report, February 17, 1956, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Fiction Jury Report, February 13,1957, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 258. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52.

384 favorite was By Love Possessed by James G. Cozzens.129 Yet once again the Advisory Board was not entirely convinced and so, as Hohenberg writes, "itself picked James Agee's notable short novel."130 This is how the Pulitzer Prize for fiction was awarded to the already deceased author for his book A Death in the Family, published posthumously.131 The jurors of 1959, after carefully examining the submitted novels, had a rather clear idea of their favorite: "The committee takes both pride and pleasure in strongly recommending John O'Hara's From the Terrace for the Pulitzer Prize in Fiction. In a year which was noteworthy for the number of first-rate novels published, this book stands out as a distinguished contribution... We recommend his book with enthusiasm and without reservation. As its second choice" the jurors named in their report "The Travels ofJaimie McPheeters by Robert Lewis Taylor... For the consideration of the final judges, we would like to record briefly our third choice, William Humphrey's Home from the Hill, an extremely able novel from a young writer of the school of William Faulkner."132 In the Board, Hohenberg writes, "there was no argument... on O'Hara's merits; the doubt extended only to the book that was recommended, From the Terrace. In the end, the doubts prevailed, O'Hara lost the prize, and Taylor won"133 for his book The Travels of Jaimie McPheeters.,13^ When the awards had to be decided on in 1960 the two jurors had a total of four books on their shortlist. "Of these four," as it is made clear in their report, "the most distinguished is Henderson the Rain King by Saul Bellow... Mr. Bellow is concerned with more than mere narrative, rich as his book is in incident, fantastic comedy, and, in general, imaginative creation... Like Henderson the Rain King James A. Michener's Hawaii departs from accepted narrative patterns... It is a seriously conceived and carefully written work of genuine stature and of more than immediate interest. Dance Back the Buffalo by Milton Lott is recommended because of its lucid, transparent writing... Faulkner's latest novel The Mansion... in fact, is a story of striking quality and atmosphere, because of its human tensions and not its social meaning."135 The Board set aside the jury's report entirely and substituted "its own judgment."136 Thus Allen S. Drury's book Advise and Consent was given the Pulitzer Prize,137 without having even been mentioned in the jury report at all. The jury of 1961 first of all complained that "certain novelists, whose earlier work had aroused our hopes, published disappointing books during the year. William Styron's long-awaited Set This House on Fire and John Updike's Rabbit, Run both lavished major talents on minor themes... Fortunately, however, the stream of new talent which constantly revitalizes American fiction produced at least two first novels of unusual distinction. The first and more ambitious of these was To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee... This is our choice for the Prize. John Kersey's The Child Buyer is our recommendation for runner-up."13** This time the Advisory Board acted upon the advice of the jury and 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

Fiction Jury Report, undated (February 1958), p. 4. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. at., p. 256. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Fiction Jury Report, undated (February 1959), pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 257. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 52. Fiction Jury Report, undated (February 1960), pp. 1 ff. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 257. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, undated (February 1961), pp. 1 ff.

385 declared To Kill a Mockingbird best novel of the year,139 thus giving the Pulitzer Prize for fiction to N. Harper Lee.140 The jurors of the year before were also asked in 1962 to select in the Fiction category. "Viewed as a whole," it says at the beginning of their report, the previous year "was a lack-lustre year for fiction. Older novelists of established reputation submitted new works only to disappoint. More regrettably, younger novelists, on whom the future must rely, produced no books of significance or even of real promise... The criteria we apply in our consideration are the classic ones: that a novel be well conceived, well constructed, well rounded, and well written. Two such commended themselves to us during the year. The first was William Maxwell's The Chateau, a quiet but sensitively written story of Americans in France... The other was Edwin O'Connor's The Edge of Sadness, which... seemed to us the best all-round novel of the year."141 The Advisory Board voted in favor of "veteran novelist" Edwin G. O'Connor and his book The Edge of Sadness.^ The Pulitzer Prize Fiction jury of 1963 began its report with bitter complaints about "the customary disparity between quality and quantity... It was a year, too, which saw headline novelists give rudimentary fiction... The most promising first novel of the year... was Reynolds Price's A Long and Happy Life, a beautifully-crafted Southern love story... As it happened, 1962 was also the year which saw the publication of William Faulkner's The Reivers, his last novel and also one of his most appealing. A genial comedy..., it contains a minimum of the rhetoric and moralizing which characterized Faulkner's later writing... Only one novel published last year rated a higher accolade from us: Katherine Anne Porter's Ship of Fools, published at last after twenty years of intermittent labor, was a literary landmark..., [it] is a novel of quality... We believe it deserves the Pulitzer Prize."143 The Board, however, decided in favor of Faulkner, who had died the year before and was thus posthumously awarded his second Pulitzer Prize in the Fiction category144 for The Reivers after winning his first one eight years before and the Nobel Prize for Literature yet another six years earlier.145 In 1964 a new jury was set up, that got to the point right at the beginning of its report to the Board: "Your judges... have reluctantly concluded to recommend that no Pulitzer award be made in that field this year. More than ninety novels were nominated by their publishers this past year. Your judges have read most of them... and have carefully considered them all. A few seem to us more original, or more distinguished in other ways, than some of the titles which have in the past received Pulitzer awards, but no one of them imposes itself upon us as demanding recognition as 'distinguished fiction...' Among the books the judges most seriously considered were the following: (1) Norman Fruchter's Coat Upon a Stick..., (2) May Sarton's novella Joanna and Ulysses..., (3) Sumner Locke Elliott's Careful, He Might Hear You..., (4) John Killens' And Then We Heard the Thunder... If a prize were to be awarded for a 1963 novel we felt these to be the most serious candidates."146 The Board took the jurors at their word and accepted the proposal of "no award."147 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 256. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, undated (February 1962), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, undated (February 1963), pp. 1 ff. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Cf. Werner Martin, Verzeichnis der Nobelpreisträger 1901-1984, op. cit., p. 248. Fiction Jury Report, January 15,1964, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53.

386 The two jurors of 1965 had to judge more than eighty novels. "In our joint judgment the prize should go to Shirley Ann Grau for The Keepers of the House" as it was stated at the end of their joint report.148 "The Keepers of the House is Miss Grau's fourth book of fiction," one juror emphasized and added: "With it she emerges, it seems to me, as, since the death of William Faulkner, the major Southern writer... No other novel of the year compares with it in the quality of the writing."149 The other juror wrote in his part of the report about Grau's book: "I think Shirley Ann Grau is a good, solid, responsible and professional novelist rather than a first-rank or major novelist, but I see no harm in giving such a book and such a writer the prize this year, since I consider that the prize has been given to less good books and less good writers in the past."150 As Hohenberg remarks, "there was no dissent in the Advisory Board,"151 and so the Pulitzer Prize for fiction went to Shirley Ann Grau.152 When the fiftieth anniversary of the Pulitzer Prize system was celebrated in 1966, the two members of the Fiction jury stated bluntly in their report: "It was, on the whole, an undistinguished year for fiction, a complaint we fear is becoming recurrent... The year had its compensation, however, chief among them the publication of Katherine Anne Porter's Collected Stories... The event served to remind us of this artist's chaste and controlled style, her subtle sensibilities, and the power of her moments of revelation. Both in manner and matter this book stood out in the year's fiction, and we have no hesitation in recommending that it be awarded the Fiction Prize."153 Three other works, Marguerite Young's Miss Macintosh, My Darling; Vardis Fisher's Mountain Man and George P. Elliott's In the World were listed as runner-ups.154 The Advisory Board accepted the jury's proposal and gave the award to Katherine Anne Porter for her Collected Stories.155 The three members of the 1967 Fiction jury "voted unanimously to award the prize to Bernard Malamud's The Fixer... Among other elements entering into this judgment, the jury noted the literary skill of the novel, unobtrusive but present, as the story itself achieves the quietly astonishing feat of beginning with despair and working through it to a climax of inward triumph, and even a kind of ironical joy in life. We are aware," the jurors added, "that this novel deals with the Russian rather than the American scene... Among other novels and short stories, there were perhaps a dozen or so seriously considered by the Judges... These included Fertig by Sol Yurick; The Last Gentleman by Walker Percy; The Crying of LOT 49 by Thomas Pynchon; Strangers and Graves by Peter Feibleman; Giles Goatboy by John Barth; and Nothing Ever Breaks Except the Heart by Kay Boyle."156 Despite the fact that the content of the book ranking first, The Fixer, had no direct references to America, the prize was bestowed on Bernard Malamud.157 With regrets the jurors of 1968 stated right at the beginning of their report that "for the first time in several years the Fiction Jury could not reach a unanimous opinion." One juror's choice for the Pulitzer Prize in Fiction was William Styron's The Confessions of Nat Turner. Two of the judges favored Isaac Bashevis Singer's The Manor as their 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157

Fiction Jury Report, January 15, 1965, p. 1. Letter to the Advisory Board, January 16, 1965, p.l. Concurring Report with Reservations, January 19,1965, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer frizes, op. cit., p. 256. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, December 15, 1965, pp. 1 f. Ibid., pp.2 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, December 27, 1966, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53.

387 choice for the Pulitzer Prize.158 A few days later the jurors added Thornton Wilder's The Eighth Day to their short list if neither The Confessions of Nat Turner nor The Manor should be given the Prize.159 The Advisory Board selected The Confessions of Nat Turner and announced William C. Styron Jr. as prizewinner.160 In 1969 a completely new jury sifted through the submitted material, creating a list of three finalists. "Our first choice," as it reads in its report, "is N. Scott Momaday's House Made of Dawn... because of its, in the words of one of the members of the jury, 'eloquence and intensity of feeling, its freshness of vision and subject, its immediacy of theme...' Our second choice is A World of Profit by Louis Auchincloss... which... is not uncharacteristic of the work of one of our best novelist of manners. Our third choice is And Other Stories by John O'Hara... which, though the author has never won a Pulitzer, contains at least two stories which reflect the level of artistic achievement that has characterized the author's work."161 Hohenberg states that "the Board's membership wasn't exactly ecstatic but it went along with House Made o/Dawn"162 and gave the Pulitzer Prize to the American Indian author N. Scott Momaday.163 For 1970 the jury was once again reconstituted. The three jurors made it fundamentally clear at the beginning of their report: "Of the seventy or so candidates not more than a dozen were marked by originality of subject or treatment, and several of the more promising entries were unable to sustain an opening streak of brilliance... Three books were finally selected as the best fiction of the year. One of the jurors rated John Cheever's Bullet Park, a novel of contemporary suburbia, as outstanding... Two of the entries were collections of short stories written over the past quarter-century by Jean Stafford and Peter Taylor, and both impressed us with their conscious artistry. Taylor's is the lesser achievement in manner and matter, but only when compared with Jean Stafford. Her range in subject, scene and mood is remarkable, and her mastery of the short story form is everywhere manifest. She is wonderfully skilled in digging out drama where others would see only drabness."164 The Board's consultative committee and the full membership as well, according to Hohenberg,165 voted in favor of Jean Stafford, who therefore received the prize for her Collected Stories.166 The jurors of 1971 suggested three candidates for the award as follows: "Losing Battles by Eudora Welty: though a genre novel and lacking in the freshness of some of her earlier works, it transcends mere fidelity to the culture of the Old South... Mr. Sammle r's Planet by Saul Bellow: at times a compelling, urbane summary of man's twentieth century accomplishments on the planet... The Wheel of Love by Joyce Carol Gates: last year's National Book Award winner plumbs Ordinariness' to deep roots... If you wish," the jurors declared in direction of the Advisory Board, "the Jury will undertake to reduce this list further, but it is not likely that we would be able to decide on a single, unanimous, persuasive choice."167 As Hohenberg found out, the Board intermittingly

158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167

Fiction Jury Report, January 7,1968, p. 1. Postscript to the Fiction Jury Report, January 15, 1968, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, December 20,1968, p. 1. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 320. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, December 17,1969, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 321. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, January 8, 1971, p. 1.

388 "seriously discussed recognizing Eudora Welty for her lifelong achievements as a leading American writer,"168 but in the end opted for giving "no award."169 For 1972, the Fiction jury wrote to the Board that the previous year "was a good if not great year for books. Fiction, however, fared indifferently, and your jury was disappointed that the overall level of the entries submitted was no higher than it was. The omens had been for an exceptional year with new novels by major writers... But the result was a Barmecide feast... All three jurors," the decision reads, "were unanimous in their recommendation for the Fiction Prize - Wallace Stegner for his Angle of Repose." It "impressed the jury as a solidly conceived, handsomely crafted work of fiction..."170 As Hohenberg reports, "it was enough to convince the Board" and give the fiction award to Wallace E. Stegner,171 based on his book Angle of Reposed In the following year, 1973, the group of jurors was not able to make up a joint report, but offered three individual evaluations instead. One juror ranked first Chaim Potok's My Name is Asher Lev, followed by Eudora Welly's The Optimist's Daughter and Isaac Bashevis Singer's Enemies.™ The second jury member had on the top of his list The Confession of a Child of the Century, by Thomas Rogers, ahead of The Sunlight Dialogues, by John Gardner and The Optimist's Daughter, by Eudora Welty.174 The third juror, however, placed Eudora Welly's The Optimist's Daughter above Thomas Rogers' The Confession of a Child of the Century and James Park Sloan's The Case History of Comrade V.17^ As The Optimist's Daughter had, in a way, gained the slalus of favorite, the Advisory Board showed no hesitation in giving Ihe Pulitzer Prize lo Eudora Welly.176 In 1974, when Ihree completely new jurors took up the task of evaluating the submissions, it was slated in their report thai Iheir "firsl choice... is Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow. For second place Ihe jury chose John Cheever's The World of Apples. One juror wished... lo record a desire lhal second place should go lo Gore Vidal's Burr. For Ihird place Iwo jurors chose Gore Vidal's Burr, and one chose Isaac Bashevis Singer's A Crown of Feathers... Our firsl choice was unanimous... Al leasl one (juror)... believes lhal no work of Fiction... begins lo compare wilh Mr. Pynchon's book in scale, originality of conception, and sustained literary interest"177 The jury's selection of Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow was nol accepted by the Board which decided on "no award" in this prize category.178 For Ihe Pulitzer Prize Fiction jury of 1975, all members of the previous year were replaced and Ihe new jurors informed Ihe Advisory Board in Iheir report "lhat out of the immense welter of indescribably bad fiction we have chosen one novel lo which all of us would be happy to see the prize awarded... The novel is The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara... Its subject is... Ihe Battle of Gettysburg, and the narrative is carried forward from the points of view of half a dozen officers, Union and Rebel... The Killer Angels 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178

John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 321. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, December 10,1971, pp. 1 f. John Hohenberg, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 322. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Letter to Herman Kogan, December 20, 1972, p. 1. Letter to Herman Kogan, December 21, 1972, p. 1. Letter to John Hohenberg, December 27, 1972, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, January 9, 1974, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53.

389 seems to (be) much more than a historical novel... Despite the diversity of points in view, it is a remarkable unit. The book contains no hokum, and the portraits limned are sharp and admirable. So we nominate this one novel and hope very ardently that the Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes will see eye to eye with us in this selection."1^ Because this vote was put forward with utmost conviction the Board bestowed the award on Michael J. Shaara Jr. for his work The Killer Angels. %° The jurors of 1976 voted by majority for Saul Bellow's Humboldt's Gift. Furthermore they had on their shortlist The Dead Father, by Donald Barthelme; The Surface of Earth, by Reynolds Price; Are We There Yet?, by Diane Vreuls as well as Ragtime, by Edgar L. Doctorow. "Our consensus as to Bellow's excellence," as the jury justified its favorite, "came from our feeling that Humboldt's Gift is a triumphant handling of a strong theme with rich understanding, compassion, sharp insight, and a splendidly sane sense of comedy... Artistically the novel is a wonderful return to a style closer to Dickens than to more contemporary, naturalistic, absurdist, and despairing modes. Bellow is satiric without being harsh, warm without being sentimental, humanistic without being didactic. The novel has integrity and invention. It projects with masterly imagination a complete world about which the author is convincingly informed, and can thus enlarge and deepen our understanding."181 This enumeration of the merits evident in Humboldt's Gift caused the Advisory Board to award the Pulitzer Prize to Saul Bellow,182 who in the same year was also to win the Nobel Prize for Literature.183 After selecting the finalists for 1977 the jurors suggested three novels for the prize ranking as follows: "1. A River Runs Through It by Norman Maclean: This is the first volume of fiction by a man," it says verbatim in the report, "who... himself calls (his work) 'a little book1 but its qualities are copious... The range of emotions and insights is broad and compelling and its concern with life in all its aspects has, despite the narratives' specific time and place, a sense of the universal... 2. October Light by John Gardner: Well-written, as is true of many of John Gardner's earlier books, but October Light is burdened by, among other things, a 'novel-within-a-novel' and verbal excesses that detract from what is essentially an interesting narrative... 3. The Franchiser by Stanley Elkin: A portrait of a part of the current American scene that has a strong sense of comedy and tragi-comedy, but ultimately sputters to an inconclusive end."184 The Board found no book prizeworthy and opted for "no award" in the Fiction category.185 In 1978 a new jury evaluated the entries in the Fiction category. It nominated, as the jurors explained in their report, "unanimously and enthusiastically" James Alan McPherson's book Elbow /toom.186 "We also admired," one member of the jury wrote, "Peter Taylor's In the Miro District, Anne Tyler's Earthly Possessions, Paul Morgan's The Thin Mountain Air, William Maxwell's Over by the River, and for various reasons one or two others. In the long run, none of us felt that any of them was as good as McPherson's Elbow /toom."187 The jury as a whole passed the following judgment of McPherson's book: "His language, his narrative skills, and his characters span a wide 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187

Fiction Jury Report, December 16, 1974, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, January 11, 1976, p. 1. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Cf. Werner Martin, Verzeichnis der Nobelpreisträger 1901-1984, op. cit., p. 292. Fiction Jury Report, December 13, 1976, pp. 1 f. Columbia University, The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 53. Fiction Jury Report, undated (December 1977), p. 1. Letter to Richard T. Baker, December 15, 1977, p. 1.

390 range from the most self-consciously cultured to the most folksy and colloquial, but consistently enlivened, at all levels of style and substance, by a firm intelligence and compassion for the things that make us all human beings, and for those aspects of living that fiction, perhaps, can best tell us about."188 Because of these remarks the Advisory Board had no difficulties in awarding the Pulitzer Prize for fiction to James Alan McPherson for his work Elbow Aoom.189 For the award in 1979, when the jury had to evaluate more than one-hundred and twenty books, there was a unanimous favorite: The Stories of John Cheever by John Cheever. "There really is no strong agreement among the committee as to nominations beyond the Cheever," the jurors declared, nevertheless supplying two additional titles which to them seemed to be of interest: The World According to Garp by John Irving as well as Continental Drift by James Houston.190 "Our feeling is," it says verbatim of the jury's first choice, "that Cheever's mastery of style, his sharp and compassionate understanding of people, and his rich inventiveness with form place him well ahead of other contenders for literary excellence. He writes with equal insight about all kinds of people and thus pictures life in the USA in all of its variety."191 The Advisory Board had no reason to contradict this nomination and gave the Pulitzer Prize to John Cheever for his acclaimed collection of stories.192 The jurors of 1980 selected the following three novels as finalists: The Ghost Writer, by Philip Roth; The Executioner's Song, by Norman Mailer; and Birdy, by William Wharton.193 Although the jury basically agreed on these three titles, the individual evaluations of the jurors differed considerably, as can be inferred from the jury report: One juror could not really decide whether Mailer or Roth was his first choice, and warmly supported Wharton as a third. A second jury member was very enthusiastic for Roth. He expressed some concern that Mailer's book may not really be a novel. The third juror was willing to list Mailer as a second choice and was willing to see Birdy on the list, though he considered it a much weaker book than Roth's. But the report added "that The Executioner's Song is clearly the best work of fiction published this year and perhaps for some years."19