So, do the New York Times and the Washington Post have to give back their Pulitzers?

I

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 9.29.16 PM.png

II

I was reminded today that the New York Times has more than just Trump issues: they, along with the Washington Post, won a Pulitzer in 2018 for their now proven bogus coverage of “Russiagate.”

Do they have to give it back like the Post had to for Jimmy’s World?

When the US President says it is "fake news”, we can now see there is a good and valid reason for it.

I wonder how many people who were dining and banking on Mueller enabling their vindictive tendencies could have survived that kind of pressure? I doubt any of them.

How many real stories have been ignored as a result of this stupid fixation?

How many hacks got awards for spewing propaganda?

When something horrific explodes, and we discover it began during this era, you know who to blame for the neglect…

New York Times wins a Pulitzer for a story they suppressed since 2004.

Journalists love, love, love to give themselves awards and prizes. two_medals

These days, these awards mean nothing.

The New York Times won the big one for their "story" on Harvey Weinstein.

They had to share it with Ronan Farrow, who actually began the investigation before they did.

But they didn't exactly earn this one for a very big reason.

They passed on the same story in 2004 when Sharon Waxman's piece was killed.

Why didn't she win the Pultizer?

Because she was silenced -- and then the newspaper turns around and wins an award for something they were perfectly aware of for over a decade.

That's how much these awards are worth...