Crowell Learning publishing and business management all over again in Vietnam

Five reasons why the Pulitzer website fails to heed lessons in online publishing

Published on 13/09/08
by Collin

Whoa, is that the website for the most prestigious award in journalism? For an industry struggling to reclaim its esteemed position as the champion of truth, freedom and the public good, the site, Pulitzer.org, which honors the most distinguished reporters and publishers in journalism, appears to be dramatically behind the digital times.

Five major shortcomings of Pulitzer.org

  1. Besides no article archive, there is no feature to discuss the winning articles online in the form of a BBS or comment stream. By adding a searchable archive and enabling comments, Pulitzer.org could quickly create a site that served as a resource for journalists around the world to discuss their profession and other important stories.
  2. New media is being heralded as a future cornerstone of journalism, where is it? Pulitzer reportedly just inked a deal with YouTube and Sony to showcase excellence in journalism on YouTube. No mention of this on the site.
  3. The site doesn’t utilize a blog to share what previous winners are working on or other important issues in journalism.
  4. The design is rather unsophisticated. Made worse by the site trumpeting their latest 2008 design. This is the least of their worries, for now.
  5. Pulitzer.org is missing RSS functionality and other straightforward web technology i.e. a newsletter that would help syndicate its news across the world.

It is an unnecessary blight on the field of journalism to have such a revered award so poorly portrayed online. There is no archive of winning or nominated articles to review or read on the site, nor hyperlinks to sponsoring institutions. It seems ridiculous that today, readers from around the world, should not be able to peruse or download material from the Pulitzer’s “library”. Good, dedicated and incredibly talented reporters work as judges and panelists on Pulitzer. They should demand and deserve better from themselves and the industry overall.

Pulitzer.org should represent the best of the industry, not serve as another stodgy reminder that the field of journalism is struggling to take advantage of the one power that ironically could save it, the Internet.

Take a look at these sites for inspiration Pulitzer:

  • The Stevie Awards, a site that recognizes businesses and services that achieve excellence in their industries or communities. Readers can sign up for newsletters and interact with panelists.
  • TED, a site once sealed off from public viewing, opened up to incredible fanfare and acclaim
  • Interactive Narratives, a site that allows readers to enjoy the best of new media journalism and vote on what works or not.

P.S. I just wanted to read a copy of the article my professor in “Critical Issues in Journalism”, Peter Kann, won for his reporting on the Indo-Pakistan War in 1972, which I still can’t find.

That's it. What Next?

Please leave your comment so we know what you think about this article. Trackback URL: Five reasons why the Pulitzer website fails to heed lessons in online publishing.