The Pulitzer's high standards (Updated)

I've been skeptical of the Pulitzer award given to The St. Petersburg Times for its fact-check operation, PolitiFact. I've found so many errors of fact and lapses of the objective standard in PolitiFact entries that I have trouble linking PolitiFact to the notion of high journalistic standards.

Happily, the Pulitzer site now lists the stories for which the award was given. And I intend to review the work to see if I detect the same high standards that the Pulitzer committee apparently detected.

As a first step in that process, I tried to find some statement of standards at the Pulitzer Web site. My search met with no initial success, so I used the provided contact link to inquire about the standards applied by the Pulitzer committee.

I suspect that if the standards were anything clear-cut, then they would be clearly listed and widely available on the Web. And I think we have a right to wonder whether standards that cannot be clearly expressed deserve the designation "high standards."

I'll be delighted if the Pulitzer folks defer to the Society of Professional Journalists and its journalistic code of ethics. Those standards are specific and detailed.


Update:

I received a very prompt response to my e-mail inquiry. The respondent forwarded the response of Pulitzer Prize administrator Sig Gissler: "Thanks for the inquiry. In large measure, the standards are expressed in the kind of work we honor. However, if you examine the definition of categories and the Q&A that we offer on preparing an entry, there is further indication of standards."

The first portion is perhaps a bit unfortunate, hinting as it does at a logical circularity. Gissler's intent, however, was certainly to say that definite standards were applied and naturally expressed in the outcomes if we allow for competent judging. Regardless, that portion of the answer was not of much use to one like me interested in the relationship of the standard to award-winning work.

The latter portion of Gissler's response was useful. I was directed to the "How to enter" page, where I would find additional descriptions of standards. From there, I zeroed in on a .pdf file under the hotlink "Journalism Guidelines."

Entries for journalism awards must be based on material coming from a text-based United States newspaper or news organization that publishes—in print or online—at least weekly during the calendar year; that is primarily dedicated to original news reporting and coverage of ongoing stories; and that adheres to the highest journalistic principles.

That's included for the sake of completeness. Obviously it is still lacking in specifics at this stage.

Any significant challenge to the honesty, accuracy or fairness of an entry, such as published letters, corrections, retractions, as well as responses by the newspaper, should be included in the submission.

The above strongly implies that dishonesty, inaccuracy or unfairness might disqualify an entry. But I find it interesting that only published letters are mentioned. It seems to give newspapers the option of covering up problems. Just don't print the letter of protest. Problem solved.

And there really isn't too much more than that. Some categories place a premium on creativity. Others emphasize clarity.

But this is far better than nothing. I have no less than three categories on which to reasonably judge the PolitiFact material.