Why the Pulitzer for the Snowden stories is a no-brainer

Yes, to all of this, by Amy Davidson in The New Yorker:

Awarding the Pulitzer for public service to the… Guardian… and the Washington… Post… should go down as about the easiest call the prize committee has ever had to make. It would have been a scandal, this year, if there had been… no… Pulitzer related to the documents that Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, leaked to several reporters. This was a defining case of the press doing what it is supposed to do. The President was held accountable; he had to answer questions that he would rather not have and, when his replies proved unsatisfying to the public—and, in some cases, just rang false—his Administration had to change its policies. Congress had to confront its own failures of oversight; private companies had to rethink their obligations to their customers and to law enforcement; and people had conversations at home and at school and pretty much everywhere about what they, themselves, would be willing to let the N.S.A. do to them. Justice Scalia recently said that he fully expected these issues to be before the Supreme Court soon, because we’ve had a chance to read the Snowden papers. And journalists have had to think about their own obligations—to the law, the Constitution, their readers, and even, in the practice of reporting in the age of technical tracking, to sources they might expose or make vulnerable. Any one of those aspects would be a major public service. How could that not be Pulitzer material?

Text and images ©2024 Antony Loewenstein. All rights reserved.

Site by Common