As committee members dithered in the intervening decade, the once all-important award became a booby prize. The New York Times reserves a wall in its glitzy midtown-Manhattan headquarters for all of its Pulitzers; it is now attempting to mortgage that wall, and the rest of the building, for $225 million. The Tribune Company, whose newspapers likewise play home to many Pulitzers, has filed for bankruptcy. There seems to be some correlation between a newspaper's number of Pulitzers and the depth of its financial crisis.

Which makes sense, if you think about it, because the kind of public-interest journalism that the Pulitzer committee rewards requires an oversized newsroom, with writers working on stories for months or years. It also requires a thoroughly snobbish definition of "public interest," which does not have much to do with what the public is actually interested in.

The good news: Most online publications won't be eligible! In a press release, the committee says it will only consider online news organizations which "are primarily dedicated to original news reporting, are dedicated to coverage of ongoing stories and that adhere to the highest journalistic principles." Considering what the pursuit of the Pulitzer has done to past laureates, any website still excluded from the race should consider itself a winner.

Slate's ever-griping press critic, Jack Shafer, has already made the point that the Pulitzer judging process is arbitrary. "There's no real science or even fairness behind the picking of winners and losers, with the prizes handed out according to a formula composed of one part log-rolling, two parts merit, three parts 'we owe him one,' and four parts random distribution."

And the former journalist who created HBO's Baltimore drama, The Wire, made one of the last season's villains an editor who boasted of his understanding of Pulitzer judges, because he had once been one. The Wire's semi-fictional Baltimore Sun pretended that its reporting had influenced Maryland's policies with regard to the homeless, because that would prove the impact of its reporting.

But the newspapers' Pulitzer-chasing is most damaging because it distracts newspapers from their real challenge. Rather than impress colleagues with the seriousness of their reporting, US newspapers need to engage a readership that is drifting off to television and the internet. Pulitzer-winning journalism will win Pulitzers; it won't save an industry which is experiencing double-digit annual declines in advertising revenue.

Take a look across the Atlantic. The British Press Awards are so lacking in respectability that, after a particularly rowdy show in 2005, several newspaper editors decided to boycott the awards. A shocked New York Times reporter wrote: "last night's ceremony — a mind-numbing parade of awards in 28 categories — was not a mutually respectful celebration of the British newspaper industry fuelled by camaraderie and bonhomie. It was more like a soccer match attended by a club of misanthropic inebriates."

And yet the British newspaper industry is in much more robust health. To be sure, circulations are in gradual decline. And standards of journalism are as sloppy as ever. But newspapers such as The Guardian have a much greater share of the online audience than their American counterparts. And the papers, while lacking much of the worthy reporting that wins Pulitzers, are way livelier.

The connection? The respect of peers is a luxury that US newspapers have enjoyed because, for much of the second half of the 20th century, they were local monopolies. They could afford to be respectable, because they didn't need to pander to readers. In the UK, by contrast, 12 national dailies are in vicious competition. Editors fear the loss of their jobs, not their honor.

It is not as if the New York Times and Washington Post can magically invigorate themselves by eschewing the Pulitzers. America's vastness, which mitigates against national newspapers and produces smaller local markets which can only support one title, is an unalterable fact. But, while the Washington Post and other winners may celebrate today, they should recognize a harsh truth: the same monopolies which have allowed a public-service mentality to flourish have also left newspapers unprepared for new competition. These Pulitzers are the totem poles of the newspaper industry; beloved relics of former glory.

• And right on cue: Seattle Times announces it is cutting about 200 jobs.

• First quarter recap: Bad news for Tribune, NYT, Gannett. Google, however, did pretty well! [MediaPost]
  
• Jews plotzing needlessly about Andrea Elliott's Pulitzer. Thank God Seth Lipsky and the Sun are here to speak for this voiceless, powerless minority. [NYS]
  
• Howard Milstein—C.E.O. of Emigrant Bancorp and Sulzberger ally—picked up six million shares of the New York Times Company. Too bad he didn't wait until today! He could have saved some serious cash. [Portfolio]
  
• People, In Touch bring their journalistic prowess to bear on the Virginia Tech story. [NYP]
  
• Publishing tycoon Duane Hagadone—he owns most of the papers in Idaho and Wyoming!—is building some big ugly house in L.A. and the neighbors are pissed. Ha. Stupid L.A. [LAT]

• Tradey mag-man Keith Fox will be the president of your Business Week. Headshots with suspicious head cropping always make us wonder how bald a fella is. That's okay. [Ad Age]
  
• The MySpacers will sort and rank news on-site, like little squirrels put to labor in a very goth cage. [LAT]
  
• Lisa Rinna (ol' Big Lips from Melrose Place!) to somehow replace Joan and Melissa on red carpets for TV Guide. Insane. [NYDN]
  
• We desperately wanna agree with the argument that a Pulitzer at the Globe for national matters swiftly defeats the annoying, gross, anti-newspapery claim that newspapers should focus local and never go beyond their counties. But a Pulitzer isn't actually an indicator of good circ or good business practice. [Phoenix]

About once a year, on this day, I find myself wondering why we treat this particular prize with champagne and speeches, while other accolades are celebrated with beer and e-mails. Shouldn't the Polk Award Lydia Polgreen accepted last week for her courageous and incisive coverage of Darfur fill us with the same pride as the honors handed out today? How is it that Tyler Hicks was voted Newspaper Photographer of the Year by a jury of leading American picture editors, but neither Tyler nor any of our amazing photo staff is a finalist for today's prizes?

I don't mean to sound ungrateful. I'm just saying prizes, like newspapers, are put out by human beings.

Bill Keller's Speech:

This is the last time we'll be having the annual Pulitzer gathering in this place. By next April we will be settled into a new home, and, presumably, whining and kvetching about the facilities. We will have a new Pulitzer wall — in the corridor outside the 15th-conference rooms. The move comes just in the nick of time, since we had pretty much filled up the hallway up on the 11th floor.

Before we get to the good news, I'd like to say what I say every year, come rain or come shine. Prizes are not the reason we do what we do, and they are not the most important measure of what we do. They are nice to get and very nice to get, but there is a long honor roll of world-class journalists — some of them standing in this room right now — who have not been singled out for a Pulitzer — at least, not yet.

This year the resourcefulness, intelligence and artistry of our journalists has been acknowledged with a cascade of prizes — the Polk, the Overseas Press Club, the American Society of Newspaper Editors, professional associations of business editors and sportswriters, photographers and graphic artists, and so on.

About once a year, on this day, I find myself wondering why we treat this particular prize with champagne and speeches, while other accolades are celebrated with beer and e-mails. Shouldn't the Polk Award Lydia Polgreen accepted last week for her courageous and incisive coverage of Darfur fill us with the same pride as the honors handed out today? How is it that Tyler Hicks was voted Newspaper Photographer of the Year by a jury of leading American picture editors, but neither Tyler nor any of our amazing photo staff is a finalist for today's prizes?

I don't mean to sound ungrateful. I'm just saying prizes, like newspapers, are put out by human beings.

Okay, that's enough cloud. On to the silver lining.

This year we had three Pulitzer finalists — two of them emanating from that engine of excellence known as the Metro Desk.

In the explanatory category, The NYT Staff was a finalist for our national wake-up call on the epidemic of diabetes. Sonny Kleinfield, Richard Perez-Pena, Marc Santora and Ian Urbina kicked off the year with an eye-opening series, and throughout the year we had contributions from other departments, accompanied by great video narratives and slide shows that brought the problem vividly to life.

In the commentary category, Joe Nocera was a finalist in his first full year as a Times business columnist. Joe's tough-minded and richly reported columns have made him a destination for those in business, those interested in business, and anyone who just love a good, thoughtful story, beautifully told.

Our Pulitzer winner this year, in the feature-writing category, is Andrea Elliott. Andrea won for taking us into a Brooklyn mosque and illuminating the life of an imam in America. Her series was a thrilling piece of journalism — an intimate tour of a world we ought to know better. Her writing was clean and clear without glossing over the complexities. It was humanizing without being romantic. And I doubt that many people who started it put it down without reading every last word.

Last Saturday one of the guest columnists on our Op-Ed page, Robert Wright wrote that the most treacherous fault line in America is the one between Muslims and non-Muslims. "Americans," he wrote, "have already done things abroad that are helping to make the 'clash of civilizations' thesis a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's not make that kind of mistake at home."

We won't, if more journalists follow Andrea's example.

Joe Sexton would like to pile on, and I don't blame him. Before he does, two more notes of pride within our extended family. Our friends and colleagues up in Boston won the national reporting Pulitzer for exposing those presidential signing statements, in which President Bush apparently set out to reinterpret legislation sent to him by Congress. And Gene Roberts and Hank Klibanoff won one of the literary Pulitzers for their fine book on reporting of the civil rights era in the South. Congratulations to them — and to all the other winners today.

Joe Sexton's Speech:

Arthur, Bill, Jill, John, thanks for the freedom and confidence and encouragement, and for creating and protecting, even in some awfully challenging times, an atmosphere in this newsroom of great ambition and appropriate modesty, of perspective and adventure and humor.

For the last couple of years, Metro has had a half dozen or more reporters engaged in long-term project work. There ain't many papers left that are able or willing to make those kinds of investments.

It's sad and scary to say that; but it is also a blessing to say that this paper is still one of them.

I'd like to thank Glenn Kramon, who has been an inspired consultant and co-architect of much of Metro's most ambitious work. He opened his heart to Andrea's series, and championed and bettered it every step of the way. And he is a prince of a person.

I'd like to thank Susan Edgerley. None of Metro's enterprise realized this past year would have got done had she not said, over and over again, that simple but daring word, "Yes."

Andrea — I know — will have lots to say about the irrepressible and irreplaceable Jim Estrin.

But I wanted to say a special thanks to Michele McNally and Meaghan Looram. They gave Jim unbelievable latitude to work his magic, and then layered on their own genius. And all that was enhanced yet further by a team at the Web, including Lisa Iaboni, Samantha Storey, Grant Burningham and Juliet Gorman.

It would be a crime if I got to stand here in celebration and did not salute the work of others.

So, I'd like to give some serious props to Tim Golden and Michael Moss and Debbie Sontag and Lydia Polgreen and Sabrina Tavernise and Michael (Wines) and Sharon (LaFraniere) in Africa and the amazing Mr. Chivers and the indestructible Mr. (Ed) Wong and Mr. (Jim) Glanz, and the extraordinary foreign picture editor who has directed her brave photographers in one war zone after another, keeping them alive and loved.

A shoutout, too, to the national desk and its defiantly stubborn commitment to covering Katrina's legacy, to Laura Chang's clear-eyed and tender look at challenging children, to Mr. Sifton's ever more entertaining and gutsy section, to Pete Thamel's exclusives, and to Larry Ingrassia's experiment with the future that is now.

Okay, just one more bit of business before Andrea. I know her parents are wondering, hey, what gives with this guy?

But the work on diabetes by Sonny and Ian and Marc and Richard, and spearheaded masterfully by the unrivaled Kevin Flynn, was some kind of model for powerful and professional partnership across the paper. And Bill Glaberson's serious beat down of New York State's system of small town justice — done in expert collaboration with Patrick Farrell — made for one of the more jaw dropping exposes of what are known as outrages hiding in plain sight.

You know, the Pulitzer people make you write up the impact achieved by any submitted body of work. It's a fun and validating experience. But often only the judges get to fully appreciate that scope of impact.

Here's a flavor then for the record books:
one reader of the diabetes series donated $6 million to reopen a clinic;
The NYS Health Foundation dedicated tens of millions to diabetes work.
Mr. Spitzer has promised to overhaul he way the state handles chronic diseases.
The National Conference of State Legislatures said the series inspired it to begin monitoring diabetes in all 50 states.
And the U.N. passed a resolution recognizing diabetes as a global threat, the first time a non-infectious disease has triggered such an action.

As for Bill, well his work only managed to produce more reform than had occurred over the last century, and, since there are no secrets anymore to the Pulitzer process, it's worth saying his work was among the final bunch in two separate categories. The state's top officials are now spending several more months studying the possibility of some more radical changes — like, oh, well, requiring that judges actually be lawyers. It will be interesting to see if the governor has half the political and personal courage he says he does.

Ah, now Andrea. You know, at the heart of her series on Sheik Reda Shata was this idea that, as he made his way in the west, the sheik had to make certain adjustments and accommodations. Well, he'll likely have to make another one when he tries to get his head around the fact that the idea for the series on the life of an American imam began in a dive bar off Times Square.

But it was there that Andrea decided the paper had neglected long enough the notion of covering Muslims in America after 9/11. She already had a head of intellectual steam and a list of story ideas, and, after several Bud Lights over which I pretended to add my own incredibly astute thoughts, I just got out of her way.

And it's a good thing to get out of her way. I have rarely been in the presence of a reporter who quite so literally vibrates with intensity — an intensity of interest, an intensity of purpose, an intensity not just to know things but to really actually understand them.

She would ultimately produce a series that, for me and others, was from start to finish built one utterly novel sentence after another.

But it was others who had the most eloquent responses. One board member of the sheik's mosque, a man who had said all he ever wanted was a fair picture for once, said: "The series marked a new era for Muslims in the country. It's like 9/11. There was before and there was after."

And so it is. You know, the sheik, in Day 2 of the series, talked about what had accounted for the often ignorant and hostile relationship that existed between Muslims and the wider world of America. "I once read a Spanish proverb," he said. "The wall of hatred was asked, "'How were you built?'" And the reply was, 'From the stones of insult.'"

Well, if today that wall of hatred has some number of fewer bricks, it is in no small part because of Andrea's series.

So, at long last, here she is.

Andrea Elliott's Speech:

I came to The Times at a tough moment for the paper. It was May of 2003. In all the tumult, I didn't expect much of an orientation. But I was hardly prepared for my second day of work, when my new boss Jon Landman said, "Oh. You should come to this Town Hall meeting we're having."

It certainly didn't feel like the most promising start. But from the beginning, my path here has been filled with the kind of great luck that anyone has to have to win one of these things. And I'm really honored and humbled to be standing here today.

My first stroke of luck came in the form of Joe Sexton. I must admit, after the Town Hall meeting, it took me about a month to work up the courage to walk over to his desk and pitch a story. I was so relieved when he didn't cuss me out.

We all know that Joe has a big personality. But what fewer people know is what a remarkable listener he is. He searches out the deepest parts of a story. And as masterful an editor as he is, he clearly hasn't tamed his inner reporter. He thought nothing of trekking out to Bensonhurst, midway through my reporting on the imam series, to meet the Sheik. For all of his boisterous passion, he can also be calm and steady and even quiet in his devotion to a project. His wisdom and patience on this one were priceless. Joe, thanks so much. It's been a huge privilege.

I had been working the Sunday shift in Metro for two years when I pitched the idea of this series to Joe. And the thing I feel most at this moment is enormous gratitude, to both him and this newspaper, for just letting me run with it. I was like so many reporters out there who have stumbled on a great story, and wanted to do right by it. And the thing about The Times is it doesn't matter if you've been here for twenty years or two. This is a place where your ideas can take flight.

I really believe that almost no other newspaper would have made this story possible. We spent thousands of dollars on Arabic translators. I worked on this series for months, disappearing from the paper. I remember at one point getting a letter from my dad that read, "Andrea, I am puzzled as to what you've been up to."

But as we finally started to get there, Joe was not alone in embracing this. Glenn Kramon was an incredible champion of the series, and all of our work on Islam, as were Bill and Jill. And I'll never forget walking up to my desk after the imam series ran and seeing this handwritten note of congratulations on my keyboard. It was signed Arthur. That just blew me away.

Another incredibly lucky break for me was to work with Jim Estrin. Long before we set out to cover Islam in America, we wound up together on the Sunday shift, cruising around looking for stories. It tells you something about our synergy that one story to which we both gravitated immediately involved a financial analyst who was giving out free hugs in Washington Square Park.

I have never met anyone with such relentless curiosity as Jim. It was Jim who learned that immigrant imams were being trained in pastoral counseling, which was one of the first tips I had that there was something great here. His imprint is felt throughout the stories we did, far beyond those spellbinding photographs. We really stopped working as writer and photographer, and became two journalists who were telling the same story in different mediums. Which is how it should be. Thank you, Jim.

And then I had the great fortune of finding Sheik Reda Shata. It's hard to fathom the courage it took for him to let us inside his mosque and home and life. As remarkable a person as he is, Sheik Reda is really unremarkable in terms of the experience he represents. He's like so many other Muslims in this country who have endured a tough journey in the years since Sept. 11, who feel they are living in a hostile land, and who have closed their doors to journalists out of fear. And yes, a lot of people wouldn't talk to me, but the only reason that some of them did was because they craved understanding, and wanted so much to be rendered with fairness and depth. And so I hope that, if a story like this has helped open their doors, we keep them open.

I want to thank Jon Landman for plucking me out of Miami and bringing me to The Times, and Susan Edgerly for embracing this beat when she was metro editor. I also want to thank the brilliant Christine Kay for working with me on the series about Muslims in the military. And I need to thank "the imam team," as we came to call it: Meaghan Looram, Michael Kolomatsky, Samantha Storey, Jeff Rubin and my translators, Awali Samara and Sadek Ahmed.

I also want to salute my dear friends, Lydia Polgreen and Sabrina Tavernise, both of whom risked their lives for this paper in the last year.

And to my husband, Tim, who is standing here today with my parents. He, like other people in this room, did extraordinary work last year. And at the same time, he was my greatest support.

I'll never forget watching Tim, when we heard the news, hop out of the car and start jumping up and down with me in rush hour traffic.

LOCAL REPORTING: The Miami Herald
Balk said: Baltimore Sun
Choire said: Baltimore Sun
Balk: 0, Choire: 0

INTERNATIONAL REPORTING: The Wall Street Journal
Balk said: The Wall Street Journal
Choire said: The Wall Street Journal
Balk: 1, Choire: 1

PUBLIC SERVICE: The Wall Street Journal
Balk said: The Wall Street Journal
Choire said: The Wall Street Journal
Balk: 2, Choire: 2

INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING: The Birmingham (Ala.) News
Balk said: Hartford Courant
Choire said: Hartford Courant
Balk: 2, Choire: 2
Note: The Birmingham (Ala.) News wasn't on the list we were going from. Not that it would have made a difference.

EXPLANATORY REPORTING: The Los Angeles Times
Balk said: The Los Angeles Times
Choire said: The Los Angeles Times
Balk: 3, Choire: 3

COMMENTARY: Cynthia Tucker
Balk said: Joe Nocera
Choire said:Joe Nocera
Balk: 3, Choire: 3

BREAKING NEWS REPORTING: The Oregonian
Balk said: The Oregonian
Choire said:The Oregonian
Balk: 4, Choire: 4

FEATURE WRITING: The New York Times
Balk said: The Oregonian
Choire said: The Oregonian
Balk: 4, Choire: 4

EDITORIAL CARTOONING: Newsday
Balk said: Detroit Free Press
Choire said: Detroit Free Press
Balk: 4, Choire: 4

So there you have it: Out of nine categories upon which we speculated, we were able to accurately predict less than half. In addition, we made exactly the same choices for every category. Why yes, we do cycle together! Things get ugly around here during the full moon. Also, we are not very good judges of what gets a Pulitzer. As we warned in the first place, our guesses were "lengthy, ill-informed, and almost certain to be incorrect." So, hey, we were right about that!

Earlier: Handicapping The Pulitzers

The Pulitzer Prizes: 2007 Winners [Pulitzer.org]
Earlier: 'Post' Flacks Kick 'Daily News' When It's Down

BALK BTW: So. The Pulitzers.
RHYMES WITH STORY: YES! Putting on the 'Litz!
BALK BTW: Let's start with the obvious things people are talking about. Why did they fuck the Times? Are they trying to send a message to Tribune? Why must something from fucking Oregon always get a prize?
RHYMES WITH STORY: Well, as for what everyone's saying is a New York Times skull-fuckery, I'm not convinced. Editorial writing and criticism are unleaked, as of yet. They can easily compete in that field, since apparently the world is composed of idiots.
BALK BTW: But the stories that didn't get picked:."Broken Bench" not getting a nod ASTOUNDS me.
RHYMES WITH STORY: Which one was THAT?
BALK BTW: The one about how every judge upstate is an inbred yahoo.
BALK BTW: That actually CHANGED things. [New York State Chief Judge] Judith Kaye put a fucking panel together. Spitzer's looking into it.
RHYMES WITH STORY: That was wholly worthwhile.
RHYMES WITH STORY: But what—they were going to get a nom for Local Reporting? For what? Alan Feuer? Back today, after 9-week absence, or whatever?
RHYMES WITH STORY: I don't even know what Explanatory Journalism: "The New York Times - Diabetes" was for.
BALK BTW: Someone was driving through a poor neighborhood and noticed a lot of fat people.
RHYMES WITH STORY: That happens to me every time I go visit my moms!
BALK BTW: I'm also surprised - but thrilled - that GILDED PAYCHECKS didn't get anything.
RHYMES WITH STORY: Oh I sort of liked Meet Rich People. I love the straight-up excess coverage.
BALK BTW: It just reeked of — sorry — entitlement. Pulitz me, bitch!
RHYMES WITH STORY: Well you know what my obsession of the year was.
RHYMES WITH STORY: The Times Coast Guard story!
BALK BTW: Yes, yes. Explain to me the importance of that.
RHYMES WITH STORY: It ran A1 on a Saturday, as I recall. I was on the LIRR. I was eating a peanut butter sandwich. And then I realized: Now I must become a drug runner! The Coast Guard is FUCKED!
RHYMES WITH STORY: They spent MILLIONS of dollars in contracts to build SHITTY BOATS. That ALL of their in-house engineers were like, UH THESE FUCKERS WON'T FLOAT.
RHYMES WITH STORY: And now there's like... NOTHING.
BALK BTW: Oh my God, the Coast Guard is run by our tech team!
RHYMES WITH STORY: They have like one cute cigarette boat. It was a STUNNING display of institutional crazy, well reported.
BALK BTW: Did anything happen as a result?
RHYMES WITH STORY: Beats me!
RHYMES WITH STORY: I haven't smuggled any coke recently. Even though Lockhart keeps asking me to.
BALK BTW: Anyway, okay, so the Times may or may not have gotten jobbed, depending on whether they recognize Magnolia Whatever's critical brilliance.
BALK BTW: Anything else jump out at you from a brief overview of the list?
RHYMES WITH STORY: Well, the LAT oceans thing was the baitiest Pulitzer bait in baiting history. So good for Dean Baquet and Co. Oh wait. Also sad!
BALK BTW: Isn't that nomination sort of a Fuck you to Tribune?
RHYMES WITH STORY: Why, because their newspapers are DESTROYING THE OCEANS?
RHYMES WITH STORY: I don't think there's much of a message.
RHYMES WITH STORY: Is the Oregonian... from Oregon?
BALK BTW: I think it just may be. Portland? There's one of those in Oregon, right?
RHYMES WITH STORY: I always confuse it with that place from which Susan Orlean came.
RHYMES WITH STORY: Willamette Weekly, or whatever. But clearly: Not the same!
BALK BTW: I think they also have a Eugene or something. Who gives a fuck, it's Oregon?
RHYMES WITH STORY: Truly.
BALK BTW: I think it's a Newhouse newspaper, actually
RHYMES WITH STORY: But speaking of Tribune, the "Local Reporting" category features The Sun of Baltimore, which the rest of us call The Baltimore Sun.
BALK BTW: Odd, they don't say what the story they're nominated for, but, not having read any of the three, my money's on that one, just because "The Wire" was so popular this year.
RHYMES WITH STORY: I'm assuming it has to do with "The Wire!"
RHYMES WITH STORY: HA. Oh that's sad.
RHYMES WITH STORY: Well, since they have no more national and international reporters, good damn thing they're doing well on local!
BALK BTW: Okay:

BALK BTW: International Reporting
1. The Wall Street Journal - China
2. Los Angeles Times - Iraq
3. The Washington Post - Lebanon
RHYMES WITH STORY: I vote for China!
RHYMES WITH STORY: I mean, WTF?
BALK BTW: I'd go with that too. Iraq so depressing to read about.
BALK BTW: And Lebanon should just be happy to be nominated.
RHYMES WITH STORY: Who the fuck talks about Lebanon?
BALK BTW: Exactly.

BALK BTW: Public Service
1. The Wall Street Journal - Backdating investments
2. The Washington Post - Farm subsidies
3. Birmingham News - Community college corruption
BALK BTW: I'm voting backdating.
BALK BTW: Corrupt CEOs and complicit boards? No one can understand the technicalities of it, but its the gift that keeps on giving. Also, Steve Jobs is hot copy.
RHYMES WITH STORY: Backdating farm subsidies!
BALK BTW: Community college corruption seems like something the Broward paper that Ortega came from should be doing.
RHYMES WITH STORY: This is like a topic of conversation that defies joke-making!
BALK BTW: I know! And there are eight fucking more categories.
RHYMES WITH STORY: I love that the Denver Post is up for "Blizzards."
RHYMES WITH STORY: Snow! In the Rockies!
BALK BTW: Write what you know.
RHYMES WITH STORY: Or Dairy Queen. Who knows?

BALK BTW: Investigative Journalism
1. Hartford Courant - Mentally Ill soldiers
2. The Seattle Times - "Your Courts, Their Secrets"
3. The Seattle Times - "License to Harm"
BALK BTW: I say Seattle splits its vote, giving the prize to the Courant.
RHYMES WITH STORY: Another win for Tribune!
RHYMES WITH STORY: A paper packed with fantastic middle-aged dude reporters who wish they didn't work for those jackasses.
BALK BTW: Still, looks good on a resume when they come calling to kids at Politico.

BALK BTW: Explanatory journalism
1. Los Angeles Times - "Altered Oceans"
2. The New York Times - Diabetes
3. The Virginian-Pilot - Security firm
BALK BTW: This has to be oceans, right?
BALK BTW: I mean, diabetes is a fucking joke.
BALK BTW: Not actual diabetes, but that series.
RHYMES WITH STORY: If Oceans doesn't win, there's gonna be some fucking pissed-off people in LA.
RHYMES WITH STORY: FINE. LAUGH AT DIABETES.
BALK BTW: "The sweet blood." Sweet Christ.
RHYMES WITH STORY: I mean, really, I'm all atwitter about Featuring Writing and Criticism.
BALK BTW: We're almost there!
RHYMES WITH STORY: Last year brought us ROBIN GIVHAN for criticism, did it not?
BALK BTW: Oh, God.
RHYMES WITH STORY: Listen. I don't want to knock a sister.
RHYMES WITH STORY: There's so few of us in the biz, you know.
RHYMES WITH STORY: But, her beating out Jerry Saltz was ROUGH.
BALK BTW: See, you do too know stuff!

BALK BTW: Commentary
1. Joe Nocera - The New York Times
2. Cynthia Tucker - Atlanta Journal Constitution
3. Ruth Marcus - The Washington Post
RHYMES WITH STORY: Two ladies!
RHYMES WITH STORY: Ladies get to have opinions!
BALK BTW: My money's on Nocera. Marcus is a joke. Do not know Tucker, but it feels like a businessy year. Plus, they have to give the Times something.
RHYMES WITH STORY: That Malcolm Gladwell article was ENRAGING. You cannot write about a legal case and toss out legal constraints. And so Nocera gets my Personal 'Litzer.

BALK BTW: Breaking News
1. The Oregonian - Lost Family
2. The Denver Post - Blizzards
3. Not yet confirmed
BALK BTW: Whatever "not yet confirmed" is, it has got to be better than the other two.
RHYMES WITH STORY: I'm praying so.
BALK BTW: "Dog has puppies" would surpass.
RHYMES WITH STORY: OH!: Wait! Lost Family! That was that amazing horrible sad thing! That was like, an internet sensation.
BALK BTW: The C-net guy?
RHYMES WITH STORY: I think so? I'm assuming that's it.
BALK BTW: Hmmm... fellow journalist as well.
BALK BTW: Okay, I change my vote.
RHYMES WITH STORY: And I think they did an amazing job on it.
RHYMES WITH STORY: But fuck a sack of blizzards. (Although I'm sure they suffered. I wouldn't report SHIT in a damn blizzard.)

BALK BTW: Feature Writing
1. The Oregonian
2. The New York Times
3. St. Petersburg Times.
RHYMES WITH STORY: First of all, I object to the entire CONCEPT of "Feature Writing."
RHYMES WITH STORY: Second of all... oh must I go on? Will this mean the NYT mag, or, gah, Styles?
BALK BTW: Solely the oeuvre of Stephanie Rosenbloom
RHYMES WITH STORY: Oh, that Rocky Mountain News guy won last year.
RHYMES WITH STORY: That was ROUGH.
RHYMES WITH STORY: For the Marine who tells people their kids are dead in Iraq.
RHYMES WITH STORY: That was some fucked up shit, yo.
RHYMES WITH STORY: RICK BRAGG won for the NYT in 1996. And the NYT hasn't won since.
BALK BTW: Deservedly so.
BALK BTW: It's like Kevin Costner winning Best Director for "Dances with Wolves." I'm sure they're still ashamed.
RHYMES WITH STORY: Indeed. Once burned, twice shy.
BALK BTW: Okay, something from Oregon MUST ALWAYS win a prize, so I'm going with The Oregonian.
RHYMES WITH STORY: How can you INSIST that the Pulitzers are political in such a fashion?
RHYMES WITH STORY: These are the PURE OF HEART awards!
BALK BTW: You're thinking Oregonian too, then.
RHYMES WITH STORY: Natch!

BALK BTW: Editorial Cartoonist
1. Walt Handelsman - Newsday
2. Nick Anderson - Houston Chronicle
3. Mike Thompson - Detroit Free Press
RHYMES WITH STORY: Who the...
BALK BTW: Handelsman's won it before is all I know.
RHYMES WITH STORY: NEWSDAY IS PUBLISHING? Could someone tell someone this? Should we post a breaking news alert?
BALK BTW: You know no one on the Island, do you.
RHYMES WITH STORY: I believe I've already referred to my time on the LIRR!
RHYMES WITH STORY: Which come to think of it, is where I see Newsday!
BALK BTW: There ya go. Pick one and let's be done with this, please.
RHYMES WITH STORY: I like Detroit! They have a great quarterback!
BALK BTW: Hahahaha, why the hell not.
BALK BTW: Is ANY OF THIS salvageable?
RHYMES WITH STORY: TONS of it!
RHYMES WITH STORY: Cuz I'll print ANY CRAP.
BALK BTW: Anyone who was read to the bottom of this has just now realized that. Okay, that should do it. Let's post this sucker.

Here We Go Again — Pulitzer Finalists Leaked! [E&P]

If you pay attention to such things, you come to learn that the announcement of the Pulitzer Prizes each year follows an oddly quaint ritual. The prizewinners are announced in April, they are announced at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and they are announced at Columbia University. Oddly, they are not announced first on the Pulitzer Prizes website; they are not announced by a televised ceremony; they don't move over the AP wire at precisely the appointed time. Rather, they are announced at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism's ceremonial World Room, which contains the stained-glass window from Joseph Pulitzer's old New York World, and one would imagine there is some sort of puff of white smoke, or herald trumpets, or something portentous, to mark the news. This year, we headed up to Columbia to find out.

The big question, really, is whether we'll make it to Columbia in time. Morningside Heights, we always forget, is far away. And we really always forget just how many stops there are on the 1. We've been told the event will be in Low Library. Will we make it on time?

We will. However, we soon learn — from the lack of any other people, certainly not from the entirely unhelpful undergrads in the information office — that the announcement is fact not at Low and must be in the Journalism building. "The what prizes?" the cute blond kid asks. Ah, youth.

We make it to Journalism in time. As we rush upstairs we see a few people stuck outside the door to the World Room. We're afraid it's so packed there's no room left inside.

We are mistaken. In fact, the room is nearly empty. There's the indefatigable Joe Strupp, from Editor & Publisher, a few people we assume are wire reporters, and a few people milling about officiously who must work for the Prizes or the j-school.

There is also coffee and a big plate of cookies. During Passover. So much for the Jews controlling media.

As 3 o'clock approaches, the room gets every so vaguely more crowded. Judging by the sartorial and tonsorial choices of the overwhelming majority of the attendees — either ill-fitting blazers and crazy gray hair or snug-fitting blazers and gelled short hair — it seems nearly everyone present is a j-school prof in for the curiosity or a j-school student in for an assignment. The room remains more empty than not.

Then the moment arrives. There is no countdown clock. There is no Powerpoint presentation. No one comes running in with a hot-of-the-presses announcement. Rather, Gissler looks around, says, "Well, I think it's three now," and approaches the podium. Does he dramatically read the winners? No. He gives a brief preamble — We've been doing this for 90 years, we'll keep doing it — and an aide starts handing out press packets. After a few minutes, students are asked to wait so "working press" can get the announcement first, to make sure they won't run out.

The few reporters on deadline — good ol' Strupp, the presumed wire guys, yours truly — read through the announcement packets and call into the office. That's it. Gissler has said he'll take questions at 3:20. (And turned away one dude who tried to ask a question early. The nerve.)

He does. Almost no one no one hung around to ask anything (though a nonspecific camera — CSPAN2? Columbia TV? Current? — remains rolling). This makes sense: The press packet is pretty self explanatory. So we leave.

And, on the way out, realize Joe Pulitzer is showing us his ass. About right. [OK, it seems that's acutally Thomas Jefferson — apparently Pulitzer wasn't so much for the wigs and britches. We're so out of contention for a prize now.]

Earlier: Gawker's coverage of the Pulitzer Prizes.

New Orleans' Times-Picayune splits public service with Biloxi's Sun Herald; Times-Picayune also scores breaking news, as expected. The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof wins for commentary — sex traffickers around the world weep. Joan Didion does NOT win for biography.

Related: Two Gulf Coast Newspapers Share Pulitzer [NYT]

Is it true? Who knows. We're hopping on the train up to 116th Street; we'll let you know when we do.

Earlier: Today in Pulitzer History: Bill Keller Wins Prize, Respects Others' Feelings

I was in Cuba, covering Mikhail Gorbachev's summit with Fidel Castro. I called the foreign desk to check in after our plane reached Havana, and learned that editors had been quaffing champagne in my honor. This was before the Internet era of no surprises, so I'd been completely oblivious to the fact that it was the day the Pulitzers were announced.

I went out to dinner that night with another reporter and didn't tell him my news. I think he's always taken my silence for supreme modesty, but, honestly, I was just too flustered to know how to bring it up.

And that little flustered, modest, angsty foreign correspondent grew up to be the paper's first emo executive editor. Big surprise.

Where Were You When You Heard You Won a Pulitzer? [E&P]
Earlier: Weekend at Judy's: Part One, in Which Bill Keller Gives Warm Fuzzies