The Guardian and the Washington Post have been awarded the highest accolade in US journalism, winning the Pulitzer prize for public service for their groundbreaking articles on the National Security Agency’s surveillance activities based on the leaks of Edward Snowden.

The award, announced in New York on Monday, comes 10 months after the Guardian published the first report based on the leaks from Snowden, revealing the agency’s bulk collection of US citizens’ phone records.

In the series of articles that ensued, teams of journalists at the Guardian and the Washington Post published the most substantial disclosures of US government secrets since the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam war in 1971.

The Pulitzer committee praised the Guardian for its “revelation of widespread secret surveillance by the National Security Agency, helping through aggressive reporting to spark a debate about the relationship between the government and the public over issues of security and privacy”.

Snowden, in a statement, said: “Today’s decision is a vindication for everyone who believes that the public has a role in government. We owe it to the efforts of the brave reporters and their colleagues who kept working in the face of extraordinary intimidation, including the forced destruction of journalistic materials, the inappropriate use of terrorism laws, and so many other means of pressure to get them to stop what the world now recognises was work of vital public importance.”

He said that his actions in leaking the documents that formed the basis of the reporting “would have been meaningless without the dedication, passion, and skill of these newspapers”.

Bravo! Freedom of the Press still exists in a small brightly-illuminated corner of what has become entertainment media, pallid and putrid.



  1. MikeN says:

    What did they do to earn the Pulitzer, other than being the recipient of Snowden leaks?

    This is almost as bad as that reporter that got a Pulitzer for reporting what she read on the Drudge Report.

  2. MikeN says:

    I guess they get it for not caving to Obama pressure.

    ‘Sharyl Attkisson left CBS News believing her stories were inappropriately shot down by her bosses.

    Attkisson explained that the White House would call or send emails, asking CBS to retract or change certain stories that the president didn’t like:

    “There have always been tensions, there have always been calls from the White House — under any administration, I assume — when they don’t like a particular story,” she admitted. “But it is particularly aggressive under the Obama administration, and I think it’s a campaign that’s very well organized and designed to have sort of a chilling effect.”

    In the end, she said it worked. Her bosses weren’t eager to deal with the “headache” of hearing from Washington again, so they ran fewer controversial stories and more that fit with Obama’s agenda. In addition, they didn’t fight for her stories because they didn’t want conflict with the White House.

    She said the pressures from the current administration were more openly aggressive than any she has experienced in her twenty years with CBS. Government officials guarded public material as if she didn’t have the right to see it, and called her stories “phony” and “bogus”:

    “Even, really the last year or so, when I would write an article online — which would be sort of the fallback position when something couldn’t get on television but was still a great story that could be circulated, I’d publish it online — they would even call about those,” she revealed. “Or they would call about the headline of the online article.”

  3. t0llyb0ng says:

    Gotta love the Guardian.  Too many well-meaning “editors” & you end up with proofreading errors:

    for breaking for

    held observed

    back-door entry (no hyphen in backdoor as a modifier)

    acknowledgement (no gem in acknowledgment)

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      tollybong–Timmmmay and I wish to challenge your argument by Authority of the Bald Statement. Language is totally artificial, controlled by the rules that humans agree to use. In that sense, there is no right or wrong, just what we agree to.

      Now, I personally know nothing about use of hypens as the rules come from without me, but the Dash springs from….. oops, off on a tangent there. Sorry.

      So—all I know about hyphens, I learned here:

      http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/hyphen

      …. and it seems to me that “back-door” is totally appropriate. Oxford, certainly the First Expert and Reference in such issues, says that such compound words can be hyphenated or made one word according to INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCE as long as one is consistent in one’s approach.

      So tollybong==what do you have against individual preference? Why do you coerce the good readers of this forum to adopt YOUR preference over what might be their own?

      Where is your humanity and common decency???

      The Horror!

      • MikeN says:

        Someone who labels himself pragmatic could use fewer words to make that statement.

        • bobbo, the big fat Liberdrul far left of Republican Light Obama says:

          Hey Mickey—I was gonna compliment you on your first few posts above. Down right rational they are. But I knew….given enough time: What Statement?

          Pragmatism does not address brevity.

          What makes you think otherwise?

          WORD POWER!!!!!!!!—–to the mAX.

      • t0llyb0ng says:

        Started a list of hyphenless compound words & it’s up to 1700 items.  Those were nailed down at least a hundred years ago, for the most part.

        The British rule is quite different:  If in doubt, put a hyphen in it.

        Here are 121 non-compound words (if they all show up):

        anti-malware; back-end; back-haul; bare-bones; bird-watcher; birth date; blind-sided; booby-trap(ped); break-in; cell phone; choke-point; color-blind; copyright-able; decision-making; dim-witted; drop-off; duct-work; dung-heap; empty-handed; empty-headed; face-down; far-flung; far-reaching; fear-mongering; fiber-optic; fig leaf; film-maker; finger-pointing; fire-hose; flare-up; flip-side; follow-up; foot soldier; free-fall; front-end; front-man; fund-raiser, fund-raising; game-play; grave-side; ham-fisted; hand-wringing; hay bale; head-start; heavy-handed; hell-hole; knock-off; land grab; land line; lap dance; life cycle; life form; life span; like-minded; lock-down; long-lasting; low-lying; lunch meat; man-hours; mid-level; mind-boggling; mind-numbing(ly); mind-share; mis-configured; modern-day; mother lode; name-calling; nerve-wracking; never-ending; non-acute; non-approved; non-binding; non-obvious; non-privileged; non-secret; non-use; non-work; over-broad; over-generalize; patent holder; pre-approved; pre-fetch; pre-loaded; push-back; ready-made; re-balance; re-brand; red-handed; re-encode, re-encoding; re-engineer; re-jigger; re-purpose; rights holder; road trip; rule book; semi-private; sign-off; sign-up; single-minded; site-wide; strong-arm; sub-par; sub-text; tag line; think-tank; time-line; time slot; time span; top-heavy; trip-wire; under-served; up-front; wake-up; week-long; whistle-blower; white-list; wide-ranging; wipe-out; work site; world-view; world-weary; yellow jacket

        • bobbo, the big fat Liberdrul far left of Republican Light Obama says:

          I just picked at random:

          worldview or world view

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

          The wiki disagrees with you.

          “You made a list…” //// Heh, heh. Yes, the authority of the Bald Statement.

          Do you simply memorize this list, cull it from authority or common public usage, use manuals, or do you have/use/discern any rule that applies?

          From my link above, I think hyphenating is useful to avoid the misplaced modifier. Hmmm, how can one mismodify world view in a sentence? Nothing comes quickly to mind.

          …and in the cyber age, seems to me “the rule” should be: fewer keystrokes? Meaning the hyphen should be done away with. Why use it at all. The run on combo fixes any ambiguity.

          Why hyphen at all?-You know??

      • Tim says:

        no hype in hi-fens

      • Tim says:

        “”…. and it seems to me that “back-door” is totally appropriate.

        That depends on how it is used —

        We helped the RCMP gent to leave via the back door.

        The three of us back-doored the shit out of that drunk mounty behind the waterfall.

        Subltle; But, the difference is there.

  4. To tell the truth says:

    Looks like Jay Carney when he had his beard!

  5. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    YOU KNOW………I’m a bit sleepy, and I haven’t had a beer in …. a few days…. but winning the Pulitzer has ZERO to do with freedom of the Press. ……….. maybe not zero, but a fraction, not yet in whole digits?

    …………….AND………….. rather Chicken Shit and derivative not to give it to Snowden as well?

    THAT MEANS….could well help establish just what a journalist is?…. you know…. for relative freedom issues?

    Only to Highlight: “Bravo! Freedom of the Press still exists in a small brightly-illuminated corner of what has become /// FOTP is NOT about Pulitzers. Its about what the Gubment does and doesn’t do. Dudes in Norway don’t even qualify as peanut gallery kibitzers.

    entertainment media, pallid and putrid.” //// Well, you nailed that one. I’d throw in syncophanatical somewhere after Tolly provides the linguistically correct version….. I prefer mine.

  6. noname says:

    Round 1:
    Lies, Secret Courts, Bush, illiterate congress & NSA: 1
    Truth, U.S. Constitution, American People: 0

    Round 2:
    Lies, Secret Courts, Obama, illiterate congress & NSA: 1
    Truth, U.S. Constitution, American People: 0

    Round 3
    Truth, U.S. Constitution & Snowden: 1
    Lies, Secret Courts illiterate congress & NSA: 0

    Winner, a British national newspaper, the Guardian
    Losers, American People, (Can’t get congress to listen to them!)!!

    • dusanmal says:

      Wishful thinking for Round 3. Nothing have fundamentally changed. No law in question have been challenged. Error in Governmental ways is exposed but nothing more.
      Next two elections could change that. We need brave legislators and administrators who would grant Snowden a day in open (not secret as they so far want) Court as well as a brave Snowden to come and face the Court case as a party with standing, as a whistleblower saying that current law is unconstitutional. Without such step, even if Government “rolls back” the law, fundamental precedent that Government can grab such power would remain and come to bite The People some time latter.
      In current climate he would have great chances to officially overturn Governmental power grab, as long as we the people do not buy propaganda.
      So, Round 3 0:0. Government holds all the ground won in Rounds 1 and 2.

  7. Captain Obvious says:

    I wonder if the Republicans and the Democrats will stop referring to Snowden, Greenwald, and Poitras as terrorists and simply start calling them “elitists” now that they’ve won a Pulitzer.

    One thing the left and right in the US can agree on: they don’t want to expose the truth.

  8. Captain Obvious says:

    And the Pulitzer committee were jerks awarding public service awards to the Post and the Guardian and not Poitras and Greenwald.

  9. Enemy_of_the_State says:

    and Barack won the Nobel Peace Prize, bfd.

  10. Kent says:

    Don’t they mean Glenn Greenwald?

  11. Yellow Kid says:

    What the hell does the Pulitzer have to do with journalism? It’s a JOKE!

    “Prizes” like this are more about winning, as if LUCK had more to do with it than any kind of SKILL! Also try and notice how it’s NOT referred to as an award until after someone actually wins it too.

    But then, all anyone has to do is look at other prizes like Nobel which has also become something of a joke, particularly in endeavors like peace. Prizes which are given to undeserving world leaders who later ramp up war activities and then increase their national spying!

    So could any of this “prize” crap have anything to do with (y)our masters trying to limit the damage and market themselves in a better light?!

    Do you really think ANY of this doesn’t have anything to do with money?!!!

    And yes, the Snowden revelations are interesting and clearly raise some rather distasteful actions that have been done — and continue being done. But you just have to ask if these prizes aren’t just more whitewash on an even bigger scandal that, so far, may have only gotten a little out of hand.

  12. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Child busy pissing on himself says:
    4/15/2014 at 6:59 am

    What the hell does the Pulitzer have to do with journalism? /// It grants prizes (awards/cash/emoluments/honorariums) in various categories such as the one here to recognize worthy acheivements in the field.

    It’s a JOKE! /// How so? The award is for writing, the Guardian and Post wrote about an issue central to all our lives. What is funny?

    “Prizes” like this are more about winning, /// No, there is no competition as such. No Prize at all in that sense.

    as if LUCK had more to do with it than any kind of SKILL! /// No skill in writing?? Well, observing your own, I can see how you might say that.

    Also try and notice how it’s NOT referred to as an award until after someone actually wins it too. /// Huh? No, its been referred to as an award/prize/recognition since its inception years ago and will be for years to come.

    But then, all anyone has to do is look at other prizes like Nobel which has also become something of a joke, /// joke? –Oh I see, you mean joke as in people can disagree with who gets it by way of various other opinions. Ok, fair enough. Don’t like the Nobel’s decision? I gotta ask: so what? Who do you think deserved it more this year?

    particularly in endeavors like peace. /// Yes, damn those A-Hole for trying to put Peace at the forefront of discussion.

    Prizes which are given to undeserving world leaders who later ramp up war activities and then increase their national spying! /// Yeap, we all agree with this the last time Obama was brought up. Still…. emphasizing the concept of Peace was and is the goal of that prize. At least, they tried.

    So could any of this “prize” crap have anything to do with (y)our masters trying to limit the damage and market themselves in a better light?! /// I think only you are three folks still commited think the Nobel Committee is anyone’s masters….or are you making another joke?

    Do you really think ANY of this doesn’t have anything to do with money?!!! /// Money? As in the Nobel Committee gives it away with NO STRINGS of any kind attached? So, other than it being a award of money to let the recipients use as they wish, you are correct: I don’t think the award has anything to do with money.

    And yes, the Snowden revelations are interesting and clearly raise some rather distasteful actions that have been done — and continue being done. But you just have to ask if these prizes aren’t just more whitewash on an even bigger scandal that, so far, may have only gotten a little out of hand. /// The award in this case HIGHLIGHTS the violation of human rights…yet you counsel it is a whitewash. A whitewash of an even bigger scandal… BWHAHAHAHA==NAME that other scandal. Connect the dots.

    What a dolt.

  13. John E Quantum says:

    Conservatives want to tell you what to think, and liberals want to tell you what to say (or is it the other way around?). The press thinks one way and speaks another.

    • bobbo, the big fat Liberdrul far left of Republican Light Obama says:

      Conservatives want you to think their theft of your property and opportunity is a kind of freedom,

      Liberals want you to appreciate what Conservatives are all about and to make your own INFORMED decisions.

      ………or so they think and say.

  14. t0llyb0ng says:

    Couldn’t write a sonnet
    if my life depended on it

  15. t0llyb0ng says:

    Condi be lasciviously lubricious
    olfactorously exudatious
    voraciously penetratious
    insertiously exploratious
    & salaciously insinuatious

    • bobbo, the big fat Liberdrul far left of Republican Light Obama says:

      You-are right, thats no-sonnet.

      I just read by coinkeydink a fancy word for mono rhyme schemes. I did not even try to remember it not thinking it would have much usage. Like most of the words in your scheme? I thought penetratious the least likely so I googled it. My, my.

      Lets give it a stab?

      Condi be lasciviously lubricious
      …………….no, the meter is all off on that.

      Gosh! It does depend on what you want to say?==>even in poetry.

  16. sargasso_c says:

    Journalism is dead.

  17. drake says:

    Kleptocracy.