By now you probably know that Chron.columnist Lisa Falkenberg won the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for commentary.
Apparently the Chron celebrated by opening up bottles of Champagne in the news room (given their budgetary problems I'm assuming it wasn't high-end) and all has been hunky-dory over at 801 Texas as we can no longer call the Chronicle the "largest daily newspaper to have never won a Pulitzer".
To be fair, however, this should really be the Chron's 2nd Pulitzer as it was ridiculous that they did not win for their coverage in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike.
Unfortunately for the Chron, in 2009 they didn't have a staffer serving as chair of the jury making the decision.
Granted, I'm not one of Ms. Falkenberg's fans and typically find her opinions on certain issues to lack either significant substance, understanding of the realities of modern Texas society, or very much insight. That all said, the reporting that Ms. Falkenberg did regarding grand juries and the curious case of Alfred Dewayne Brown was solid reporting that was probably deserving of a Pulitzer for commentary regardless of whether or not one's colleague was guiding the decision making process.
And that's what makes this so bad. Because it LOOKS wrong. If anything, in a moment of brilliance, Ms. Falkenberg did turn out a compelling bit of reporting that could have won on its own merits. That Jim Newkirk, Viewpoints Editor of the Houston Chronicle was the chair of the jury panel is unfortunate. It would have been better had he simply recused himself, in which case Ms. Falkenberg's work would have had a good chance of winning anyway.
Instead we're just left with another reason that those who pay attention don't have much faith left in the media. Even when something good happens, there's reason to doubt that it was done in the most forthright way. This does not imply that Mr. Newkirk did anything wrong. To the contrary, it implies that, to the Pulitzer Foundation, the concept of what is right and wrong has been lost to the mists of time.
For all of the reporting and screaming about conflicts of interests by the TLSPM, it's almost comical to see just how big of a problem they have with it themselves.
All that said, congrats to Ms. Falkenberg. She really did do a fine job of writing about this story and is deserving of all the praise (and reward) she gets from it. It would be nice to leave it at that but it really does a disservice to journalism (which it is pretended this blog critiques) to praise the deserving winner while ignoring the holes in the nomination and selection process. This would be like praising the Texas Legislature for the rainy day fund, but ignoring the politicians who operate under the Peter Principle.
In that sense, Ms. Falkenberg's piece stands on its own. It won under the same set of rules and regulations that past winners have, and this fact does not diminish her award at the exception of past winners. Ms. Falkenberg is now, officially, a Pulitzer Prize winner and deserves all of the congratulations she is currently receiving.
Also, as one of her biggest critics, I offer up congratulations to her for winning the award where 114 years of Chron staffers have come up short. That is an impressive feat no matter how you look at it. That said, one can't help but wonder how Ms. Falkenberg is going to work into almost every column that she is (in order) a sixth-generation Texan, a natural red-head, AND a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist?
