Fallows about The WaPo Editorial about the Nobel Peace Price.Don't these people have The Google?

[Mass]

And is he right! If you cannot give this price posthumously, what is the point of this article.


http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/dont_these_people_have_the_goo.php

10 Oct 2009 12:04 pm
The Washington Post's lead editorial today argues that a more deserving winner for the Nobel Peace Prize would have been Neda Agha-Soltan, the young woman whose death during the Iranian uprising became a worldwide symbol, comparable to the Tank Man of Tiananmen Square in 1989.


Defensible point, though obviously purely symbolic in its own way too. As the paper says, after arguing that the selection of Barack Obama is an expression of hope rather than a post-achievement recognition:

"The Nobel Committee's decision is especially puzzling given that a better alternative was readily apparent.... A posthumous award for Neda, as the avatar of a democratic movement in Iran, would have recognized the sacrifices that movement has made and encouraged its struggle in a dark hour."

Would it have been so hard to mention the complicating fact that Nobel prizes are only for still-living people? And that this is a basic element of discussion when, for example, the literature prize rolls around each year? (After John Updike's death in January, one of the Post's own writers noted that among the sadnesses was that Updike would never be recognized with a Nobel prize.) And that therefore the omission of Neda is not "especially puzzling" at all? The FAQ page at NobelPrize.org (yes! there is such a site) makes this clear:

"Is it possible to nominate someone for a posthumous Nobel Prize?

"No, it is not. Previously, a person could be awarded a prize posthumously if he/she had already been nominated (before February 1 of the same year), which was true of Erik Axel Karlfeldt (Nobel Prize in Literature 1931) and Dag Hammarskjöld (Nobel Peace Prize, 1961). Effective from 1974, the prize may only go to a deceased person to whom it was already awarded (usually in October) but who had died before he/she could receive the Prize on December 10 (William Vickrey, 1996 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel). See also par. 4 of the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation."

And this paragraph is the very first thing that comes up on a Google search for "posthumous Nobel prize." According to Google's meter, it took 0.24 seconds to find that info, and it would have taken maybe another fifteen seconds to change the sentence in the editorial to say: "Although the Nobel committee ordinarily rules out posthumous awards, an exception in this case... ."

Maybe the no-posthumous-award rules make sense. (Otherwise, you could have a debate every year on whether Abraham Lincoln, St. Francis of Assisi, or Gandhi was the most deserving choice.) Maybe they don't. Maybe they should have exceptions for deaths within the calendar year. Etc. But these are the widely-understood rules. Who is on the copy desk these days? Or writing editorial like this?

[Bumblebee]

1. To say nothing of how it all happened months after the nomination deadline...

[Blue_Tires]

10. +1

in the old days the WaPo would have canned someone for that many inaccuracies...but that was when papers still cared about their reputation...

i don't even think the post will print a correction over this..

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Kkkarl's kids resent ' Time Out ' though we desperately need it. MSM

Will say anything now, except the truth.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. One time it was given posthumously, then they changed the rules. n/t

[Hamlette]

6. but only if you were alive when nominated. There is no way she would have been nominated

before death.

Under any of the rules followed for the prize would she have won the prize.

[Kdillard]

4. It is not surprising given the lowering of standards in the American

News Media both in print and on television. The Washington Post doesn't believe that the President deserves the NPP and they will defend that position with arguments that have no merit or which can be easily discredited with a little bit of research. They don't care about the integrity or quality of their work as long as it makes the point that they want to be made which is that we have an underserving President winning a prestigious award.

[treestar]

5. Amen! We have the worst media we've ever had

It is not "journalism." Too many "journalists" are salivating over the "influence" they have. They don't want to report facts, they want to shape what we think.

[Hamlette]

7. The WaPost turning into a complete rag is one of the greatest disappointments

after their brilliant work on Watergate.

It seems odd to me that in a city with the most liberal population in the country, the newspapers are so Republican. That is not to say they are conservative because conservatives would have eaten Bush alive for his deficits. The WaPost is almost as bad as Fox news these days.

[malletgirl02]

8. Washington Post

I would say that the Washington Post is worst because atleast Fox is outright with their bias, most people can see it coming, but with the Washington Post it biases are stealth. I had to admit it took me some time to see it. I could never figure out why some people at DU didn't like the post. I had to really think about it to see that something wasn't right.

[Hamlette]

11. I have to say, I'm having a hard time getting upset at the demise of newspapers.

24 cable news sucks but there are very few newspapers left worth anything. The way I feel right now, if they all go under, good riddance.

I'll get my news via the internet where I can easily check the facts.

[struggle4progress]

9. "First the facts, then the opinion" seems not to be a popular attitude for the corporate media