<blockquote><font size="1" face="TImes, TimesNR, serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by blanp: <p>... which just goes to show you that the Pulitzers aren't what they used to be. Wait. They never were.<hr></blockquote><p>Royko won the Pulitzer for commentary in 1972. That award, though, is said to have been payback of sorts for his not getting it in 1969, for his columns on the '68 Chicago convention, and as an acknowledgment of his book. That's what wrong, or among what's wrong, with the Pulitzers, the politics and the horse trading.<p>When he did win, Royko had this to say:<p>"Newspaper awards are meaningless now and they will be as long as only stars are recognized. An award will have meaning to me when it seeks out the sparkle that most people never see, the rewrite men, the copy editors and the reporters who rarely get bylines. Those are the guys who make a daily newspaper work."<p>The message board here could overflow, of course, with speculation on how much of this Royko truly meant. I'd like to think it wasn't entirely insincere.<p>Anyway, Dean Betz is right about Royko retiring long before he pissed away so much of his credibility. Problem is, he wouldn't have retired with Slats, or not with Slats alone. Jack and Jim
|