2010 Pulitzer Prize luncheon remarks - Amanda Bennett

Low Library, Columbia University – May 24, 2010

Amanda Bennett

Executive Editor/Projects and Investigations, Bloomberg News

Co-chair, The Pulitzer Prize Board

Thank you, David, and not the least for inadvertently giving me the title to my talk, which is "More Wit Than Erudition," except that I'm not sure about the wit part.

I'm Amanda Bennett, executive editor of Bloomberg News and as David has said, co-chair along with him of The Board.

I'm afraid that the first part of the narrative line of excellence that David has just laid out has suffered a bit in recent years. There is a story line out there, and I know you've all heard it – because I've heard it – that the quality of journalism has irretrievably suffered and fallen. That only the best, the biggest, the richest papers can do great journalism – and that even for them it is a struggle, which means that the inevitable result is the decline in the standards of excellence that this Prize has rewarded for 94 years.

It’s a story line that the industry has labored under for almost the whole of my eight-year tenure on the Board. Following David's example, I went back into some recent history, and as I reviewed the previous speeches of Pulitzer Board Chairs, I had to go all the way back to the one delivered by the late William Safire in 2003 before I found one that did not speak about the trials facing the news industry, and instead focused exclusively on journalistic themes – his theme, by the way, was “Trust” which he called “Topic A”.

Now I've got no intention of minimizing the difficulties of the past few years. and I would venture to say that there isn’t a journalist in the room – and I would include all the families and friends present – who don’t bear something of the scars of the last five years.

Yet in this year in particular, we on The Pulitzer Board saw very, very little – despite all the hardship in the industry – to back up the idea that great journalism is a dying art. In fact, we found very much to support another and much richer story – one that is making us as a board pleased and happy – and so proud – of you.

And that is the story of One. How great journalism at papers and news organizations big and small, print and electronic, in words and in photos, still come down to the decisions, and the actions, and the passion of one person: one reporter, one editor, one photographer, one cartoonist.
Let's consider for a moment the Public Service Pulitzer – in many ways it's the iconic Pulitzer. Always awarded to a publication, never to an individual, the gold medal has become the de facto symbol of the Prize itself. Well, in this case the publication is the rural Bristol Herald Courier, which we will soon recognize for its work in helping landowners recover natural gas royalties owed to them.

This was the work of one person – 28-year-old Daniel Gilbert, who saw something he didn’t understand and kept picking at it until he did. Behind him, was another one person – his editor Todd Foster, who saw the potential in the story that others had ignored… and behind them the six other individuals on the staff who picked up the work and kept the paper going. (Now at this point I was gong to say "without complaint," but I know newsrooms too well to go that far out on a limb…)

Meanwhile, you could hardly say there was a news organization more beset with distractions this year than the one in Philadelphia – yet Wendy Ruderman and Barbara Laker were out on the street, interviewing families, interviewing cops, busting a rogue narcotics squad that had victimized the city. Big time investigative reporting – two single individuals. One large impact.

And the breathtaking photo by Mary Chind of the Des Moines Register of a harnessed rescuer reaching out his hand to a woman submerged in a swirling eddy beneath a dam. One photographer. One moment. One iconic image.

The same is true for all the journalism and all the news organizations, big and small. Whether it's a tainted hamburger, or a parent's tragic error, or the economic divide of what should be one community. It all eventually boils down to individuals. Individuals seeing a story, recognizing the story, becoming passionate about the story.

Even in the stories that traditionally take lots of people, lots of coordination – like The Seattle Times coverage of the 40-hour hunt for a man who killed four cops – you peel back the cover of that, and you'll find the story of one – of one editor who said we could do it, of one editing staff who said we know how, and one reporter, one photographer over and over again who said it was worth it.

These journalistic skills are portable. Sheri Fink started her story of life and death decisions in New Orleans at The New York Times, took it with her to ProPublica, and published it in both places. One person. One story. Big impact. Such collaborations were nonexistent when I joined the Pulitzer Board in 2002.

In 2007 then chairman Mike Pride announced with pride that animated cartoons were among the finalists for the first time in 2007. This year, we have a winner. It's self-syndicated Mark Fiore for work appearing on SF.gate, the San Francisco Chronicle Web site. One person. One vision.

You are all here because you are ONE. And behind you is another ONE.

Now in the peculiar iconography of Pulitzer watching, you might take away from this a strange and distorted message -- that you should only apply for thins with one byline, or that only small papers should apply, or that only animated cartoons will win from now on, or that only online submissions or only joint ventures.

You know what, nothing could be further from the truth.

Instead the message you should take away is that what the Pulitzer honors is excellence in journalism. And that those journalistic values -- objectivity, deep digging, great writing, exposing secrets, telling stories and searching for truth, still lives and thrives even in the middle of chaos, and in fact is transforming in wonderful ways that we can't even begin to predict.

And that as journalists move from one paper to another, from paper to online, to hybrid endeavors, they are taking those skills and values with them. they are producing excellent and creative work, work which I believe hasn't even come close to showing its full potential yet.

So, go back and tell you friends in your newsrooms why you are here: because you saw a story or a photo or an opportunity to inform or lampoon; because yo believed in it and followed it and that any one person can do that too, no matter where they are.

And tell them to do the same and to inspire other people to do the same, and to go on producing journalism that doesn't just win Pulitzers, but that is worthy of Pulitzers.

_____

Now I'd like to introduce Lee Bollinger, who besides being a fantastic Pulitzer Board colleague and president of Columbia University is also a noted first amendment scholar who teaches a course on the first amendment at Columbia every year, and is the author of a very well-received new book on the subject: “Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century."