All products featured on WIRED are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links.
In the finest tradition of journalism's ruling hierarchy, the Pulitzer committee has appointed a committee to study whether "new media" entries should be eligible for the Pulitzer Prize in the future. The good news is that new media will remain ineligible for at least one more year. The bad news is that the committee might decide to let us in after that.
Maybe this committee will do better than the innumerable other media committees created to study ethics, get the young reading newspapers again, or consider the implications of whether or not to take the plunge and use color news photographs. Don't bet your new laptop on it.
The Pulitzer committee, according to Owen Thomas of Wired News, rejected two new-media entries this year: "Bosnia: Uncertain Paths to Peace," a photo essay by French photojournalist Gilles Peress, published exclusively on The New York Times' CyberTimes site, and Our Town Charlotte, a CD-ROM created by the staff of the Charlotte Sun-Herald of Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Pulitzer rules require that nominees include print clips.
New-media organizations have protested these pleistoscene Pulitzer notions of what journalism is. But wait a minute. The awards process - and the efforts of new-media journalists to participate in it - raises a lot more questions for new media than old.
Some questions for those who want the Pulitzers to celebrate new media: Do you really want the approval of journalism professors, editorial page editors, and op-ed columnists? How confident are you in the editorial judgment of the people running the Pulitzers? How comfortable are you with the level of creativity in mainstream journalism? How many Pulitzer winners from the past five years can you name?
Is this really a club we want to join?
Should new media define itself by the arrogant, declining, and in some cases, corrupt ethos that dominates mainstream journalism?
If new-media journalists decide they really need awards, they should forget about seeking the approval of the Pulitzer committee, whose criteria in recent years seems mostly to be length and irrelevance, and should instead set new standards for excellence that bear on the new information age.
The very name "Pulitzer" stands for an information model - passive, top-down, exclusive, inhibited - that is the antithesis of the best of new media. The Internet embodies Marshall McLuhan's notion that the medium is literally the message. On the Web, worthy new-media offerings ought to be honored in his name, not that of some dead newspaper mogul. Here are a few possibilities for qualification for, let's say, the McLuhan New Media Awards:
Interactivity. To qualify, journalistic nominees from news organizations must permit public access to open discussion of news content. They can't just pretend to care what readers think, as most news organizations do - they have to actually incorporate other points of view into their editorial product and provide substantial opportunity for readers and viewers to comment on their editorial process. They would need to embrace a far more democratic notion of media than that of journalists telling everybody else what to think and do.
Integrity. Journalistic organizations that don't require reporters and editors to disclose all outside income, such as consultancies, book contracts, TV appearances, and speaking fees, can't submit pieces for the McLuhans.
Freedom. To qualify for the McLuhans, news organizations must demonstrate that they support the free movement of ideas and information, from opposition to noxious laws like the Communications Decency Act to support for controversial expressions of culture. News organizations that inaccurately or hysterically portray new media and popular culture as dangerous or pornographic, or who promote censorship or otherwise impinge on the individual freedom of others, are not eligible.
Graphic design. Graphics are not a supplement to editorial content, but an integral part of it. Don't bother sending stuff to the McLuhans unless it looks like something produced in the latter half of the 20th century. Offhand, this would rule out every newspaper in America.
Community. New media, branded as isolating and disconnected, is in fact often about new notions of community. McLuhans would be given for new-media sites and organizations that promote community - the sharing of information, the coming together of people in a lasting and continuous forum.
Civility. American journalism promotes discord, confrontation, fragmentation, and hostility. To enter the McLuhans, you have to promote civility, communications, the distribution of facts, truth, and evenhandedness, as well as spirited disagreement.
Moral purpose. American journalism was created with a strong sense of moral purpose - like the promotion of individual liberty. Even though most journalistic organizations no longer have any purpose beyond meeting the budget, lots of Web sites do. The McLuhans would reward journalism that has moral purpose.
Creativity. Award-winning media should be creative. It should be about good writing, original ideas, creative risk-taking, innovation, experimentation, and change. Does this sound like the news media you know, the ones getting awards from the Pulitzer committee?
Some strong contenders for the McLuhan include:
SeniorNet, the online world's model community, one of the Web sites that most demonstrates the blending of technology, politics, utility, and community.
Riotgrrl, the Web site that mixes smart writing about culture and politics with a strong new feminist sensibility that celebrates women without excluding men or making them feel uncomfortable.
The Dallas Morning News, which broke a major news story on its Web site and helped create a new kind of middle media.
The Media Conference of The WELL, which has consistently provided the most timely, intelligent, and useful monitoring of old and new forms of media, and has maintained the most sustained, wide-ranging, and provocative discussion of information issues anywhere in media, new or old.
The Rabbit Rescue Forum of AOL's Pet Chat, for saving and providing 24-hour support and comfort to innumerable rabbits in recent years.
Cyborganic Gardens, the Web site that has, for several years, been reinventing biography, personal history, and community online.
The New York Times CyberTimes site, suddenly and by a wide margin the best traditional news presentation on the World Wide Web.
The American Library Association for fighting censorship, promoting freedom, and slugging it out every day on the front lines, where technology and information collide.
Salon, the stuffy but earnest book site that is working to fuse traditional literacy with digital technology, thus celebrating both.
Firefly.com and Amazon.com, sites for the sale of music and books respectively, for making money on the Web, undermining censorship by their very existence, and for their creative and efficient uses of technology to advance commerce, music, and literature.
Those are just a few of my nominees for a McLuhan. Please add your own. None of these organizations are eligible for a Pulitzer Prize. All are either brilliant, innovative, or compelling. This should tell you one thing at least - the last thing we need is to be judged by their standards, and to seek their approval.
The irony is that new media like those above are far more free, creative, brave, timely, and inclusive than old. We should be offering our own recognition, not groveling for theirs. These are the same people who have been trashing new media, technology, and popular culture for years. These are the people who have been attacking rock and roll, comic books, videogames, TV shows, movies, rap music, and the Net daily. These are the graphically impaired, the pompous, and the people most reluctant to give up their grip on our common social and political agenda.
It's fitting, not unfair, that they see these vibrant new forms of culture as ineligible for their awards. It's a badge of honor, not a rejection. CyberTimes and the Charlotte Sun-Herald should post a message saying "Rejected by the Pulitzers," so we would know they're likely to be interesting, outspoken, or innovative.
The Pulitzer Prizes are a tired and stuffy celebration of a tired and stuffy medium. Maybe, if papers and commercial broadcasting change radically, enforce some ethical standards, consider creative change, and support the free expression of ideas and culture, we might consider letting them apply for a McLuhan sometime down the road.
Then again, maybe we won't.
