Were Pulitzer Prizes Awarded To Traitors?
I rarely write rebuttals to articles, but sometimes an article is written that is odious and ignorant enough to warrant a counter-article in order to clear the air of the pollution that these mole-sighted "journalists" vomit into our collective consciousness.The article of note in this case is an editorial by conservative hack Michael Goodwin, who is currently poisoning minds at the NY Post. Goodwin wrote an article on April 20th titled, "The Pulitzers Reward Traitors and Treason." I will utilize excerpts of that article in my rebuttal, the full text of which can be found here.Goodwin begins with a typical broad, foolish statement:
It’s official: Treason is cool and traitors are acceptable sources for journalists. The Pulitzer Prize says so.
Immediately questions are raised if you are a person who doesn't implicitly trust the State to always have the best interests of the people in mind: Who exactly is the traitor here? And who has committed treason?According to the State, Edward Snowden is the traitor. However, his actions can barely hold a candle to those undertaken by the government against the people, which was revealed in the documents Snowden shared. Were there some "universal court," which was somehow legitimized, our "leaders" would have been tried and hanged for treason against their own people enough times over that all of Middle America would be gallows. Are crimes against the people lesser than those against the State? Only because the State has the power to brand with a scarlet "T" those who would oppose it.
In giving the 2014 Public Service award to The Washington Post and The Guardian for publishing stories based on Edward Snowden’s stolen documents, the Pulitzer judges gave their stamp of approval to news organizations that cooperate with criminals and compromise national security. No doubt the lesson will trickle down to scoop-hungry young journalists that they should cultivate people willing to betray America.
Snowden has been categorized as a criminal by some and a hero by others, but honestly that shouldn't matter in the least. State law enforcement agencies deal with criminals all the time during investigations, but even more egregiously, the State also intentionally deals with perpetrators of war crimes. The State also finds allies in thieves, rapists, murderers, etc., all in the name of National Security. Why? In order to put U.S.-friendly leaders on the throne (which almost always results in blowback).So why should the media, which is supposed to be one of the protections intended to keep the State accountable, be any different? If the truth is the truth and wrongdoing is exposed, does it matter that it comes from a "hero" or "villain"? Absolutely not. But Mr. Goodwin would like us to play by some set of imaginary rules that walk the razors edge of journalistic morality. If the government doesn't play by these rules, why should the media?I won't comb through every one of Goodwin's articles, but seeing as he has been around for quite some time (somehow even winning a Pulitzer himself in 1999), I would bet every dollar I own that at some point he has gotten information from a source that could be considered criminal.He goes on to attack Snowden for finding refuge in Russia and cites Snowden as being a pawn for Putin to "mock America." Maybe Snowden wouldn't have to play nice with the Kremlin if he was allowed back into the United States. Just a thought. Or if the U.S. hadn't threatened other, far more friendly, countries with sanctions who even dared think about opening their borders to him, he may not have ended up rubbing elbows with Vladimir. Goodwin cites the result without acknowledging the cause.
Either way, Snowden’s actions represent one of the most serious security breaches in modern times. He intentionally alerted our enemies to our capabilities and programs, some of which must be scrapped at a cost of billions upon billions of dollars to taxpayers. So far, there are no known fatalities from his betrayal, but if there were, would that matter to him?
Snowden alerted the State first (which ignored him), then released this information to the media. The people that this information helped were American citizens, who were alerted to the liberty-crushing actions of the federal government, all of which resulted in zero actual benefit. None of the U.S. Government's "enemies" benefited, unless you count American citizens as enemy combatants, which the State increasingly is trying to do for our daring to exercise various utilizations of the First, Second, Fourth, etc. etc. Amendments, or simply questioning the size and scope of government.As for the billions of dollars in taxpayer money lost? I view it as a massive amount of money saved on unconstitutional, rights-infringing spying programs that should have never existed in the first place and which no taxpayers knew about.Goodwin wraps up his article in the most blowharded fashion imaginable - by invoking the almighty sword of Journalistic Ethics and Standards, which he hath pulled from the stone and is now swinging as though he were Arthur striking down Morgan Le Fay.
As for the Pulitzers, Snowden is not mentioned in the award, but for pure transparency, he should have been. The Washington Post and The Guardian didn’t do traditional reporting. They were handed the documents under agreements with Snowden and his accomplices and wrote stories about them. Not to at least credit Snowden for making that work possible seems an act of convenient omission by the Pulitzer board.
Thousands of hours of research and crafting stories that break down complex systems in a way that translates to the everyday American warrant nothing to Goodwin. Only editorial posts expressing outrage should be awarded Pulitzers, I suppose.
Then again, what would the judges have said to mitigate their harm? That “we don’t approve of how the papers obtained the documents, but we think they were important enough that it doesn’t matter”?That would have caused a firestorm, but it would have made their rationale for the Public Service award more open and kept faith with their stated standards of sparking a public debate over security and privacy. If nothing else, an informed debate about surveillance should be accompanied by an equally informed debate about journalism ethics and standards.
How have the actions taken by these newspapers (and it is shameful only these papers stepped up to cover this, the most important news story in the last 10 years), diverged from the way in which any confidential source delivers information to a journalistic entity? Goodwin is citing his imaginary journalistic ethics rulebook, created in the land of mist and spirits, which does not inhabit our living realm.
With news organizations already trusted about as much as politicians, which is to say, not much, the award can only further diminish journalism in the eyes of ordinary Americans. If that was the goal of this Pulitzer, then it’s definitely Mission Accomplished.
Right here Goodwin defeats his own earlier points by expressing how little the public trusts the news organizations. Of course there is no trust because they are so politicized and either operate as the favored little darlings of the Obama Administration, the cursed enemy, or just media toadies who are jockeying for a White House position. Or simply propaganda created by our own government, distributed through media outlets disguised to look like actual news stories to an unsuspecting populace.This Pulitzer is a bright blazing sign that encourages real journalism again. Journalism that informs the people what is really going on. Goodwin's article is trash - it's the worst kind of journalism that helps nothing, buys into the popular communal thought of one side of the political spectrum and is a black eye for true journalists that are still working today, taking chances and risking themselves in order to bring truth to the masses. That sound you just heard was Goodwin's Pulizter falling off his mantle. May it be ever-cracked.The Lions of Liberty are on Twitter, Facebook & Google+Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!
