Phawker: Stephen A. Smith loses Inquirer column

In degree, but not in principle, I don't think.

 

This is no knock on Canzano, either (I've done that plenty elsewhere, on the Allen radio decision). But I always saw those Pulitzer nominations as backhanded compliments. Usually, the smaller or less impressive the paper, the more likely one really good journalist is to get nominated from the place. My previous paper nominated me once, and I was embarrassed as hell to find out later. Asked my boss: "What were you thinking?!" Not that I had to sweat out a potentially embarrassing victory.

(Besides, to me, the only Pulitzer that really matters is when a news reporter uncovers something really big, sinister, scandalous or important. Coverage of big news events, that's what we're here for. "Commentary" and feature Pulitzers, gimme a break. And the big projects, hell, there are papers that have Pultizer projects built into their budgets, sparing no cost in blatant attempt to chase the gold.)

 

Jim Murray never won the Pulitzer ... or at least that's what another thread said.
The commentary ones, which I assume would also include editorial writing, can be some of the most courageous writing found in any paper.
Taking an unpopular editorial stance with the community because it is the right thing to do trumps any coverage of big news events.

 

Jim won the Pulitzer for commentary in 1990. Somebody told him Red Smith had his Pulitzer certificate sitting in the dust of a barn out back of his house. Jim said, "Hell, I put mine on the roof with a spotlight on it."

 

Jay, that article Reilly wrote grumbling about Murray never having won a Pulitzer was published in 1986.

I probably should have included the epilogue:

 

On the Pulitzer debate, I really agree that the ones that mean the most are the investigative and the commentary ones... Most of the others are given because some colossal tragedy happened in your city and you covered the hell out of it.

 

How does commentary mean any more than feature writing?

And why do we need to weigh and compare them anyway? A Pulitzer is a Pulitzer. If you won one, you probably earn the hell out of it.

 

Has anyone posted this yet? The bizarre Inquirer story on Smith's demotion: http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20070822_Stephen_A__Smith_due_to_return_to_reporting.html.

As Will Leitch noted - http://deadspin.com/sports/cheesy-doodles/philly-paper-cant-get-rid-of-stephen-a-fast-enough-292627.php - the inclusion of the Slate link is hilarious.

 

You have to love when a reporter has to write that his own SE "refused further comment" and that someone on their staff "was unable to be reached for comment"

Yeah, I'm sure everything there is just peachy...

Hilarious stuff...

 

This has turned into an old-fashioned pissing match... I'm guessing the Inquirer doesn't want to fire Smith because they either don't want to pay him severance and/or they don't want to fire an African-American employee.

They obviously expect him to quit.

 

And Stephen A is returning the favor by being a dick.

I have a feeling that not firing a black employee is playing a large role in this, given the protests outside the Inquirer after last year's layoffs.

 

I don't blame him for being a dick... I've heard of plenty of columnists being fired, but I've never heard of one being demoted to GA...

I don't blame the Inquirer for wanting to be rid of Smith, but I do blame them for the way they're handling this.