The British newspaper The Guardian and the
American paper The Washington Post shared the Pulitzer
for public service for their coverage of the NSA's domestic spying programs (as
revealed through the documents leaked by Edward Snowden).
The Prize was awarded on Monday, with the Pulitzer Board remarking that
the Prize was merited through “authoritative and insightful reports that
helped the public understand how the disclosures fit into the larger framework
of national security” (as reported by The New York Times).
The Pulitzers Board's remarks were
no doubt carefully calculated-- the NSA and Edward Snowden are still
highly contentious issues in the country today. While the Board could have
remarked that the coverage revealed a secret that should not have been kept
from the American public, they instead stated that "aggressive
reporting ... spark[ed] a debate about the relationship between the government
and the public over issues of security and privacy" (as reported in The Guardian).
The obvious connection to make with
this particular tidbit of news would be to Chapter 15 in O'Connor: What is
the role of the media? Should it be a watch-dog over the government? Or is the
media obliged to "start conversations," as it were? Furthermore,
do you think that the actions of The Post and The Guardian should
be considered "public service" (is a for-profit publication really a
vehicle for public service)?
These connections are worth making, and I'd love your responses. But
let's throw in some nuance: how does this story relate to Chapter 17? Specifically
Elitist, Bureaucratic, and Pluralist Theory? Here are my thoughts:
it's essentially impossible for the public to be involved with any policy
making decisions if those decisions are kept secret. Could the "public
service" the two papers performed be--in essence--including the public in
policy-making decisions?
