Brianna Lyman writes for the Federalist about an odd choice for journalism’s Pulitzer Prize.
On Monday The Washington Post announced that it won a Pulitzer Prize in the breaking news category for its coverage of the July 13, 2024, attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
The “coverage” in question?
That Trump was “taken away after loud noises at rally,” according to a July 13 headline.
According to the Post’s self-congratulatory write-up on its award, WaPo’s “live-updates file” — from which the aforementioned headline came — earned the paper what was once journalism’s top honor, the Pulitzer.
“The Post’s first report from Butler published almost immediately, at 6:21 p.m., in a live-updates file,” the article reads. “The source of the loud noises was not immediately clear.”
But they weren’t just “loud noises.” They were gunshots that ripped through Trump’s ear and killed firefighter and father Corey Comperatore, who died shielding his family from the assassin’s bullet. In fact, the Post knew the gravity of the situation because it published that headline with the featured photo showing blood pouring down the side of Trump’s face.
Yet, the Post still went with — and won an award for — that angle. Two days later, the paper’s Paul Farhi defended the media’s coverage that deliberately downplayed the horrific event, saying media outlets “reported cautiously about what had occurred” since “it wasn’t immediately clear what was unfolding.”
“But being right rather than first with the news wasn’t good enough for many readers,” Farhi wrote. He later paraphrased Poynter Report media columnist Tom Jones, who argued that “news organizations can tolerate criticism … but inaccurate reporting destroys their most precious asset: their credibility.”
As if the Post has ever cared about accurate reporting.
That The Washington Post can receive a Pulitzer Prize for describing an attempted presidential assassination as “loud noises” isn’t just a media failure — it’s the Pulitzer Prize’s final self-immolation.
