Simon ,'Jaynestown'
There's more to life than watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer! No. Really, there is! Honestly! Here's a place for Buffistas to come and discuss what it is they're reading, their favorite authors and poets. "Geez. Crack a book sometime."
For me, this is about mediation. The Pulitzer people are the ultimate in mediators.
You are dumb. We is smart. Listen unto us. We are of Pulitzer, therefore wise.
That aside ... the fragmentary, immiediate nature of blogs is the thing that should attract the Pulizer commitee. So what if it is harder to find the good stuff among all the me-too and other chaff? That is what the Pulitizer is for, after all.
I'm not saying he's right
The Pulitzer people are the ultimate in mediators.The Pulitzer determines what people read in much the same way as the Academy Awards determine what people watch. And they've got about equal amounts of credibility.
It's a 10-second news item. Very few people care.
I'm not saying he's right
Are, too. erikaj agreed with me. However, that was because she thinks I'm cute, which invalidates her argument.
Wait.
I'm right. erikaj is ... Dang! I never should have taken up booze.
Strega, the Academy and the Pulitzer both have enormous weight in what people consume. It is unfair and wrong, but remains a fact. A recommendation by either body is directly convertible to currency.
Oprah has more bearing on sales than a Pulitzer, I'd bet.
Oprah has more bearing on sales than a Pulitzer, I'd bet.
You would win. She is a better mediator.
It is unfair and wrong, but remains a fact.What's the evidence for that fact? I think it's trivia. Oscar-winning movies may get a brief boost, but people don't stop watching or reading other things because they fail to win awards. And they don't see other movies just because someone involved got an Oscar.
The fact that it's an annual award pretty well guarantees irrelevance. Blogs are essentially equivalent to newspapers, only far more ephemeral. Nobody subscribes to a particular paper because it has X Pulitizer winners on staff. Or if they do, they're a tiny minority, and god help them. I read the Post, mostly, and that's despite the fact that Stephen Hunter got a Pulitzer, not because of it. Peer recommendations have far more influence on what people consume.
What's the evidence for that fact? I think it's trivia.
Oy! I do not have box-office scores in my immediate recall. That a particular movie received any boost from an Academy recommendation is enough. Mediation at work.
Good on you, that you do not read the Post 'cuz Pulitzer-Comm said to do so. That is you. I am not talking about the discerning public.
Oscar-winning movies may get a brief boost
It depends on a lot of marketing factors, doesn't it? Brokeback didn't get much of an Oscar bump because it already had been seen by its audience.
Million Dollar Baby though got a significant boost from the Oscar attention.
I don't object to there being variations on Blue Ribbon panels to bring attention to various projects in various media. It's just a form of expert vetting, and depends on what you think of the particular set of experts.
The Nobel brings attention to achievments in science in a way that simply wouldn't exist without them. Ditto for the Pulitzer and journalism.