PolitiFact-Pulitzer Prize update

One may have noticed a lack of recent entries in my series about whether PolitiFact's Pulitzer Prize in 2008 was deserved.

There's a reason for that even beyond the time requirement:  The dog ate my homework.

Sort of, anyway.

I completed the seventh installment and published it as the sixth installment, failing to realize that I had neglected to publish the sixth installment.  And while remaining under that impression I deleted what I took as an extra copy of the sixth installment (that is, the only true copy of the sixth installment).

It's been tough to motivate myself to redo the research on that item so far.  But don't lose faith.  It will probably happen within the next few months.

Now, related to my earlier research, it looks like the Pulitzer folks have updated their website with additional information about the method used to award their coveted prizes:

6. What are the criteria for the judging of The Pulitzer Prizes?

There are no set criteria for the judging of the Prizes. The definitions of each category (see How to Enter or Administration page) are the only guidelines. It is left up to the Nominating Juries and The Pulitzer Prize Board to determine exactly what makes a work "distinguished."

"(N)o set criteria."  In context, this is not so surprising.  The eligible publications are required to adhere to journalism's highest standards, which presumably include the fairness and accuracy stipulations that I've used to help evaluate about half of PolitiFact's winning group of entries.  The latter portion regarding the term "distinguished" I think reinforces my argument that PolitiFact won its Pulitzer in considerable part because of its groundbreaking format.  It's a legitimate consideration (not least because of the wide discretion given in the above FAQ item).  But it's certainly a reason to refrain from placing a high degree of trust in PolitiFact's general accuracy based on the 2008 Pulitzer Prize.