Patterico's Pontifications

4/7/2008

L.A. Times: No Pulitzer for You!

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 11:22 am

The Pulitzer Prizes have been announced, and the L.A. Times has come up empty this year.

In fact, the committee told Chuck Philips he has to give his back.

OK, I’m kidding about that part. But just barely.

P.S. Michael Ramirez won for editorial cartooning. He used to be with the L.A. Times . . .

13 Comments

  1. Michael Ramirez…
    Ten years ago, or so, before he went to the LAT, Michael won a Pulitzer while at the Memphis Commercial-Appeal.
    Probably one of the reasons they offered him the job when Conrad retired –
    boy, were they in for a culture shock (as was he, as he recounted in a conversation we had a while later).
    Another award for someone with talent – and a conservative view of life.
    Congratulations, Michael!

    Comment by Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 4/7/2008 @ 11:59 am

  2. “Editorial Writing: No Award”

    Ha.

    Congratulations indeed, Mr. Ramirez!

    Comment by old maltese (682a2b) — 4/7/2008 @ 12:06 pm

  3. In fact, the committee told Chuck Philips he has to give his back.

    Interesting idea. Several years back, in response to all the performance-enhancing drug scandals, the governing body of several Olympic sports (swimming, track, wrestling) implemented rules that decree that anyone caught drug cheating would have to forfeit their prior medals, even if they had tested clean during that particular competition. I believe that the Olympic Games either has in place or is considering a similar policy. There was an item in the papers just last week about Marion Jones having to return some World Championship medals. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the Pulitzer Committee adopted this sort of ruling for plagiarists, fabulists, and those who bring disrepute upon the profession?

    Of course, this is the same group that still can’t see fit to revoke Walter Duranty’s award, so I guess I am not holding out hope.

    Comment by JVW (835f28) — 4/7/2008 @ 12:10 pm

  4. I don’t think it was the conservative perspective that hurt Ramirez as much as his anti-gay prejudices that popped up from time to time. It was refreshing to see a conservative take, but any cartoon dealing with homosexuality was embarrassingly offensive.

    Comment by Kent (7df554) — 4/7/2008 @ 1:56 pm

  5. I hate the LA Times. They fired Robert Scheer, and now we’re stuck with him at the SF Chronicle. Fully 95% of his columns could be condensed to “I hate Bush.”

    Comment by aunursa (1b5bad) — 4/7/2008 @ 1:58 pm

  6. So then, Kent, at the LAT an editorial cartoonist can be anti-Republican, anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, anti-Evangelical anti-military, anti-business, anti-Israel, anti-rural, anti-police, anti-flag, anti-flyover, etc., but if you dare poke fun at the Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Trans Rights lobby you will be swiftly drummed out? Pretty narrow thinking by the editors, wouldn’t you agree? Maybe that is why, despite their pretensions to being a national newspaper, the LAT remains provincial and elitist.

    My guess has always been that the LAT got tired of Robert Scheer and wanted to get rid of him (those of us here were fond of pointing out how stale and predictable his columns were), but they didn’t want all the caterwauling from their lefty readership (hello Barbra!) so they sacrificed Ramierz too in order to “balance” the loss of Scheer.

    Comment by JVW (835f28) — 4/7/2008 @ 2:08 pm

  7. I did not read aunursa’s comment before posting mine, but it looks like we were on the same wavelength.

    Comment by JVW (835f28) — 4/7/2008 @ 2:09 pm

  8. Wasn’t Scheer’s wife the Editor of the Editorial Pages?

    The only Nation that the LAT covers is the West-Side. It’s their perspective, their outlook, all they know. If only they were provincial, they would have a wider outlook.

    Comment by Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 4/7/2008 @ 2:25 pm

  9. On the west side they read the NY Times.

    Comment by Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 4/7/2008 @ 11:08 pm

  10. They should have hated on America more. That’s the key.

    Comment by Kevin (57a31b) — 4/8/2008 @ 12:20 pm

  11. i grew up in west los angeles. eat my gucci boxer shorts!

    Comment by assistant devil's advocate (ca12d5) — 4/8/2008 @ 1:20 pm

  12. Too bad for the L.A SLIMES they wont be getting a pulitzer CRY ME A RIVER L.A. SLIMES

    Comment by krazy kagu (3067be) — 4/8/2008 @ 2:05 pm

  13. ada, #11…
    Well, that explains it!

    Comment by Another Drew (8018ee) — 4/8/2008 @ 8:13 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3021 secs.