The Pulitzer Prizes were announced this week. The Bristol Herald Courier won the Pulitzer for Public Service for its story about energy corporations who failed to pay thousands of Virginia landowners after draining their natural gas.

Online news websites were also honored for the first time. Mark Fiore of the San Francisco Chronicle (who created the video shown here) won for editorial cartooning, and Sheri Fink of ProPublica, in collaboration with the New York Times Magazine, won one of two prizes for investigative journalism.

It also marks the first time a Pulitzer has been given to a co-published, collaborative story, BBC News says. The article also has a quote by the administrator of the Pulitzer prizes, Sig Gissler, about the increase in collaboration. “I expect we are going to see more of it in the years ahead, as organizations face tougher financial situations,” Gissler said.

A complete list of the awards can be found on the Pulitzer website. Also read Attorney General Eric Holder’s memo concerning FOIA denials, and take The Pulitzer Quiz!

… war coverage by a free and independent media with reasonable access to the battlefield forces policy makers to deal with the reality of what is happening on the ground instead of what they want the public – or even Washington – to think.

Photos by: Mateusztt, Jeeny, Sherurcij, Movieevery, jamesdale10, ISAF Headquarters Public Affairs Office/Wikimedia.

Wikileaks released a classified US military video on Monday showing an American helicopter killing over a dozen civilians. Reuters tried to obtain the video through a FOIA request but was continuously rejected (big surprise).

The horror of the event, highlighting a dire need for formidable investigative war reporting, is obvious. Yet some members of the mainstream press are doing an excellent job at missing the point. Check out these headlines:

• Leaked U.S. Video Shows Deaths of Reuters’ Iraqi Staffers (Washington Post)
• Wikileaks releases video depicting US forces killing of two Reuters journalists in Iraq (Christian Science Monitor)
• Wikileaks releases video of Iraq journalist shooting (CNET)
• Video Shows U.S. Killing of Reuters Employees (New York Times)
• Wikileaks Defends Release of Video Showing Killing of Journalists in Iraq (New York Times blog)
• Leaked video footage shows Iraq journalists killed by US gunships (The Times)
• Video shows U.S. air attack that killed photographer in ’07 (Star Tribune)
• Chilling Footage of Journalists Getting Shot In Iraq (San-Francisco Bay Guardian)

You get the point. The killing of twelve unarmed civilians at the hands of American forces is newsworthy, and yet the deaths of two Reuters staff takes headline precedence. What does this, and the fact that it was an independent and heavily under-funded web operation that obtained the video, say about news?

There’s been a debate lately about whether people should be able to comment anonymously on news websites, because of the vile, outrageous things that are often said for the sake of being inflammatory. Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune says that a compromise is needed, something like “pseudonymity” where people must have a registered user name and profile but they don’t have to reveal their identity.

I’m likely to support a compromise, because Pitts is right when he says that comments people make will be open to scrutiny by anyone, including potential employers. While some think it’s ethically egregious to restrict people’s voices, the fear of being scrutinized for expressing your opinion also has its consequences.

However, the compromise doesn’t eliminate “sock puppets,” or continuous fake accounts that are created to be inflammatory.

The iPad will be sold tomorrow! CNN, Reuters, the New York Times, Time, Sports Illustrated, and People magazine are among those on Apple’s list of iPad-ready websites. Although I don’t think the iPad is the key to journalism’s future, I’m interested in finding out whether it was worth all the hype.

Len Downie, the former executive editor of the Washington Post, says journalism will thrive if its based on a non-profit model, discusses the Nieman Journalism Lab. (The video is a lecture he gave at Stanford University last year on the future of journalism.)

His belief in non-profit success stems partly from these organizations’ willingness to collaborate. Interestingly, the Associated Press reports that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will spend $10 million over the next two years to support local news. It’s plans include the creation of five regional journalism centers, with PBS and NPR collaborating on major topics that affect the nation, like health care and the economy.

iPad A Matter of Hype

On a similar topic, Scott Rosenberg has a funny post about how iPads are the new CD-ROMS, and will not “turn the clock” on the media industry’s current business model:

The Web triumphed over CD-ROM for a slew of reasons, not least its openness. But the central lesson of this most central media transition of our era, one whose implications we’re still digesting, is this: People like to interact with one another more than they like to engage with static information. Every step in the Web’s evolution demonstrates that connecting people with other people trumps giving them flashy, showy interfaces to flat data.

As another one of those “iPad skeptics,” and a believer in social media and public journalism, I think he’s spot-on.

I’ve avoided talking about the media’s hysterical reaction to Tiger Woods’ affair, because I don’t care. However, after reading a recent New York Times blog post I do feel an urge to say something about the media frenzy that’s made me a little ashamed of journalism.

“Why CBS Said No to Tiger Woods Interview“ is not newsworthy. CBS declining a five-minute interview with Woods because it’s not newsworthy is not newsworthy. Anything that has to do with Tiger Woods’ affair is not newsworthy at this point, especially to reputable news organizations like the New York Times.

In other words, the Times ought to take a hint from CBS and know when it’s time to move onto to worthier topics- especially after this scathing Huffington Post article about “Tiger Woods Syndrome” and sport journalist Art Spander’s compassionate editorial on RealClearSports. Since there’s no news left on Woods’ affair, leave the inquiries into his personal life to TMZ.

Take Our Poll

After my last post on Wikipedia, I’m starting to rethink my skepticism that it’s a good example of citizen journalism, especially after this excellent article by Greg Beato at Reason.com.

Beato says it’s interesting that although journalists are hailing citizen journalism and hyperlocalism, Wikipedia got snubbed in NYU’s “Top Ten Works of Journalism of the Decade.” He throws plenty of criticism around, including the fact that the list was very New York-centric. But what was most interesting to me is his belief that Wikipedia deserves recognition for its citizen journalism, and is more neutral than “both professional and amateur journalists alike.”

I’ve given Wikipedia’s triumphs a second thought, and I can’t say I disagree with Beato. For the same reason that I don’t find anything wrong with scanning Wikipedia while I’m writing a research paper, because of its scholarly sources, I also don’t see why Wikipedia can’t be recognized as a more objective form of information gathering on the part of citizens.

Court Lifts Ban on Media Ownership

The Court has lifted restrictions on media companies’ ownership of a newspaper and broadcast TV station in the same market, the Associated Press reports.

Some argue that the restriction fostered competition and media diversity. Others see the Court’s decision as reflective of the basic reality of media convergence.

I’ve always been  suspicious of convergence, because to me it’s synonymous with “monopoly” or at least the slippery slope to monopolization of business and opinion.

I’m always open to feedback, though. Do you think media convergence limits competition and diversity? Email me at woeismedia@gmail.com.

Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, spoke to Media Bistro about the plight of magazines and the importance of community-based journalism.

Wales says that magazines, although “useful in certain contexts” are in trouble because they don’t provide as much content as websites and they don’t come free.

‘Why should I subscribe to a photography magazine, when I can go and get massive amounts of information, that’s much more detailed and much more in-tune with my interests, online, and it’s good quality?’ The idea that people will pay for quality, and that the traditional magazine is quality — that doesn’t really hold up.

He also believes that the success of Wikia and Wikipedia lie in that fact that they’re community-based.

Communities are capable of high-quality work. Journalists and magazines both operate in communities and should consider moving away from the ‘top-down’ and ‘broadcast’ way of thinking towards more of a ‘community facilitator and moderator’ way of thinking.

I wouldn’t say that the anonymous editing of Wikipedia is “high-quality,” but it does show a real interest on the part of citizens to be participants in media (duh). Maybe we were always interested, and we were never given a platform. Either way, in an age of Wikipedia, blogging, Facebook, and opinion-based TV news, I think the debate over the role of public journalism is pretty much over.

The Pew Project For Excellence in Journalism released it’s 2010 State of the News Media report. In this interview by the Center For Sustainable Journalism, Lee Rainie of the Pew Research Center says the future is optimistic, because it will allow for greater public or civic journalism.

There is every reason to think that high quality, ethically sound journalism will be alive and well after our grandchildren are dead…

News organizations are trying to adapt to the new realities that will allow them to provide it, and there will always be a portion of the population who deeply cares about public life and civic life and the way that public institutions perform. And there will be ways for them to tell their stories and learn about what’s going on in their communities.

Rainie also said that journalism skills “have never been more in demand.”

Whether it exists in institutions we call news organizations is probably the bigger question, but it will exist in all sorts of forms in the future.

As a student of journalism who often worries about her ability to get a job after graduation, that’s good to know!

Although reading fake news was as wild as it got!