Washington Post Awarded Four Pulitzers

Prizes Awarded for Beat Reporting, Investigative, Criticism and Explanatory Journalism

Washington Post staff writers Susan Schmidt and R. Jeffrey Smith, two of The Post's Pulitzer Prize winners, will be online Tuesday, April 18, at noon ET to discuss the paper's four awards and their investigative reporting on the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Submit Your Comments or Questions Here.

Post Wins 4 Pulitzer Prizes; 2 Go to New Orleans Paper, ( Post, April 18, 2006)

The Post won in four categories: Beat Reporting ( Dana Priest), Criticism ( Robin Givhan, Explanatory Reporting ( David Finkel and Investigative Reporting ( James V. Grimaldi, Susan Schmidt, and R. Jeffrey Smith).

____________________

Susan Schmidt: Hi, everyone. This is Sue. Jeff will be on shortly. We had a great day yesterday and are ready for your questions.

_______________________

St. Petersburg, Fla.: Do you think, as a newspaper, that winning these four major categories cements The Post's position as the best paper in the land?

Susan Schmidt: There was some fantastic reporting by newspapers all over the country last year, including some very deserving papers that didn't win yesterday. The Toledo Blade, for example, was a finalist for the Public Service award for its Coingate reporting and could easily have won. But, for today anyway, I guess we feel like we are working for the best newspaper in the country.

_______________________

R. Jeffrey Smith: i've just joined the conversation and want to say hello to readers out there who have "tuned in" to our conversation. i'm happy to try to answer your questions.

_______________________

Anonymous: What is your take on Abramoff's early career as an apologist for South Africa? It sounds so bizarre that I can't believe the GOP didn't declare him radioactive! (Although we know Cheney viewed South Africa as a great nation, and Mandela as a terrorist!)

Susan Schmidt: There are quite a few startling items in Abramoff's background, including his South Africa ties. There is something of a pattern in him allying himself with seeminly contradictory elements in foreign affairs, ie he sent money to a sniper school run by Israeli settlers on the West Bank, and at the same time sought to represent Islamist governments.

_______________________

Boston: Congratulations to all of you! It was recognition well-deserved. Although we beat up on you sometimes for your lack of the super powers necessary to breakthrough the Great Wall of Crawford, in our heart of hearts we are grateful for the valuable reporting you do.

P.S. Too bad Fred Hiatt did not walk away with the fiction prize and give The Post a sweep! Maybe next year!

R. Jeffrey Smith: many thanks for your compliments. we have questions today from those who feel the Post deserved its 4 awards, and those who feel they were not deserved. what's clear from the response is that our journalism has both attracted attention and provoked discussion. this is pleasing. we don't expect all our readers to like every article, but we're delighted to stir discussion.

_______________________

Anonymous: How come whenever there is a disaster, the hometown paper wins a Pulitzer?

When the Hyatt catwalk collapsed in Kansas City, the KC Star won a Pulitzer.

After the Columbine massacre, both Denver papers won Pulitzers.

And now this year, in the aftermath of Katrina, the New Orleans and Biloxi papers won Pulitzers.

I'm sure there are other examples, as well. Why does this occur?

Susan Schmidt: It's when there is a disaster that a news organization really tests its mettle. Many times--as was the case this year in New Orleans and Biloxi--newspaper reporters and editors mount a superhuman effort because they know readers are really counting on them.

_______________________

Anonymous: Who picks the Pulitzer Prizes?

It seems like every year the Washington Post and New York Times dominate the awards.

Is this because of these papers' excellent work or because the committee that picks the prizes is from the East Coast?

R. Jeffrey Smith: a very interesting question. while it's true that editors from big city newspapers frequently serve on the pulitzer board -- including, from time to time, those from the washington post and the new york times -- the process is actually fairly democratic. around 2000 entries are initially sifted and sorted by committees of prominent journalists from all over the country, and they recommend the finalists (usually three per category). then the board picks the winners. but the members must leave the room when the work of their own publications is being discussed. the real answer to your question, however, is that a relatively small number of newspapers support the kind of sustained investigative work that wins prizes -- including the Post and the Times. lots of other newspapers have also won, but these two papers often dominate simply because their editors are committed to dogged investigative work.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: A member of Congress stated politically that he predicted that one Senator and six members of Congress will be convicted in the Abramoff case, but declined to name them? Would either of you wish to speculate who is potentially in the most danger of being indicted in these scandals?

Susan Schmidt: We have reported that the Justice Department is investigating congresssional staffers and members of Congress who went on trips with Abramoff and received favors from his team of lobbyists. Among those members whose actions are under scrutiny are Rep. bob Ney, Sen. Conrad Burns and Rep. Tom DeLay.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: As The Post is basking in the well-deserved glory of your awards, it's smarting from the dishonest and misleading editorial entitled "A Good Leak". Has this been a water-cooler subject at The Post, or is it considered simply as a strange anomaly that will somehow go away?

P.S. I think The Post should reveal who wrote it myself. Your opinion?

R. Jeffrey Smith: there's been lots of talk about that editorial, inside and outside the paper. but a wall exists between the news department and the editorial department, and we don't meddle in one another's work. i personally don't read editorials very often, and prefer to keep an open mind on the subjects i care about.

_______________________

Long Beach, Calif.: What is your opinion of the fact that President Bush declared the Pulitzer prize winning work of Dana Priest to be a disgrace to America? Has this ever happened before, where a President accuses a Pulitzer prize winning investigative reporter to be tantamount to a traitor?

R. Jeffrey Smith: no one has accused dana of being a traitor, nor could they. please note, as the post has done on many occasions, that certain information in dana's possession was withheld from publication in deference to the government's national security concerns. but please also do not expect newspapers such as this one to follow the commands of politicians. our role is to help provide an INDEPENDENT check on the activities of our government, and we intend to continue doing so.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: When I read the first major expose you did I was blown away at the depth and detail it contained.

How did you get so much information? Were you working on this story full time? Who else helped you?

P.S. Ralph Reed was covered in your reports but it still seems his involvement (esp now that he is running for political office) in the whole Abramhoff affair has not received the same amount of coverage as Mr. Reed got when things were good...Ie Cover of Time magazine etc. Care to comment?

Susan Schmidt: The three of us--Jeff, James Grimaldi and I--spent almost all of last year working on Abramoff--DeLay stories. Speaking for myself, many, many people provided bits and pieces of information--former Abramoff associates, Hill aides, other lobbyists, even members of Congress. We also got lots of information from the public record--Federal Election Commission reports and Lobby Disclosure forms filed with the House and Senate. We also drew on other records filed with the IRS, as well as property records, divorce filings--a whole gamut.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your Pulitzers. They are well-deserved.

I cannot in good faith extend the same congratulations to Robin Givhan. I could not believe that she was honored with a Pulitzer. Her "work" is so destructive and mean-spirited. She didn't even spare the children of John Roberts.

Why on earth did the Pulitzer Prize committee consider such a vindictive person to be worthy of such an esteemed award?

R. Jeffrey Smith: Robin's work is creative, witty, and opinionated. Isn't that the definition of a good columnist/commentator? There is no expectation here that what she writes will generate universal agreement, nor should there be.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How did you divide the work into investigating the Abramoff scandal?

R. Jeffrey Smith: this is a fun question. we had arm-wrestling and watermelon-spitting contests. no actually, it worked like this: Sue wrote first about Abramoff, and I wrote about DeLay. Then James joined us with his own excellent ideas about where the story should go. And the DeLay and Abramoff threads of the story turned out to be more closely intertwined than any of us suspected at the outset.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I will like to congratulate The Post on winning the four Pullitzers. They were all well-deserved. My question is whether there is sort of anti-Pullitzer? I mean if there is some organization which chronicles the worst journalistic attempts of the year?

Susan Schmidt: There are no shortage of critics on the web and in print who bash the press when it falls short, and even when it doesn't. In fact, press criticism has become such a cottage industry it's sopping up a lot of time and energy that maybe ought to be directed toward real reporting.

_______________________

Gullsgate, Minn.: Schmidt and Smith: I've followed the writings of David Finkel for some time - he is one who touches on the human and the subjective even while pursuing an objective storyline. It takes the touch of a poet and a fine journalist to show us the world through his eyes.A Pulitzer was more than deserved for this journalist.

R. Jeffrey Smith: i could not agree more. david's powers of observation are stunning -- unmatched in my view on any newspaper anywhere. he is also, as you said, a sensitive writer who ladles out each word like a gift to his readers.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: This is not to diminish your excellent work in any way, but does it make sense for The Post to lump your awards together with the prize won by a fashion critic?

R. Jeffrey Smith: newspapers are a smorgasbord, not a book. there's something for everyone -- so we hope. and the prizes are structured to reward many different types of writing. there will be some readers who revere a solid investigation, and others who delight in witty commentary.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Is Bob Woodward on the editorial board? I'd hate to think he had anything to do with "A Good Leak", as he's lied about his involvement in Plamegate, and should not be allowed to have any imput in justifying Cheney's political spitball antics. Your opinion?

Susan Schmidt: Bob Woodward is not on the editorial board. He did not lie about his involvement with Plamegate. My opinion is he is a very great reporter.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: Were there moments when you felt a bit of trepidation while investigating such big fish like DeLay and Abramoff - vaguely ominous statements during interviews that might have been intimidating?

Susan Schmidt: Never. The real scary reporting is going on in Iraq, not in Washington.

_______________________

Anonymous: What was your favorite, or most impressive investigative report from this last year? Granted, the Abramoff reports were a tour de force, but was there one in particular that you thought might capture the Pulitzer instead?

Susan Schmidt: There was lots of great competition, from the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinal stories about FEMA and fraud to the revelations about congressman Duke Cunningham (which won a Pulitzer in the national reporting category) to the aforementioned Coingate series in Toleda. The LA Times had two very worthy contenders too, a series on professional guardians who take over the lives and finances of the elderly, and a series on misspending at the Getty museum. We admired and worried about them all.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Kudos for your Pulitzers.

I'm curious - how many years have you been aware of the awards and hoping to win one?

And do you feel that the Pulitzer Prize board is impartial and fair to all journalists? Or do you think they have a predilection to pick journalists that share their world view?

R. Jeffrey Smith: the idea that a group of journalists has a "world view" is simply hilarious. we're a scrappy, independent-minded bunch, for the most part -- fiercely competitive and frequently disdainful of those who claim to have all the answers. but as to the beginning of your question, everyone who works at a daily newspaper knows what a pulitzer is and how hard it is to get one. we all tune in 3 pm on a monday in april to learn which of our colleagues has won. that said, the idea that you can write a story specifically to win a certain prize is unfortunately far-fetched. it's not so simple. we're pleased that the jurors have honored our work, but it was hardly a certainty. (we were all nervous last week.)

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your Pulitzer Prizes. Does the boss come through with a pay raise yet?

Susan Schmidt: Thanks, Dad.

_______________________

Houston, Tex.: Congratulations to The Post on the Pulitzers, well deserved. I am thankful there are still newspapers unintimidated by this administration and willing to investigate. On that note, do you think there any 2006 deep throats in big oil/energy with conscience to reveal the secret energy meeting details?

R. Jeffrey Smith: we're happy to take any good news tips anytime. you know how to reach us, here at the Post.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Nobody here seems to want to answer the pink elephant in the room: That so many of the Pulitzers were awarded for stories that bashed the Bush administration.

Why is this?

Does the Pulitzer Prize committee lean to the left?

Susan Schmidt: The press tends to report aggressively on whichever party is in power in the White House, especially when they have been there for a while.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: Any kudos at The Washington Post for getting a Pulitzer, e.g. payraises?

R. Jeffrey Smith: let me give you the e-mail address of our editors....

_______________________

Houston, Tex.: Congratulations to you and to the Pulitzer winners at The Post. I believe the reporter that unearths this administration's secret energy meeting ties to the exorbitant profits of big oil/energy would surely win a Pulitzer.

Susan Schmidt: We'd be glad to look into it--help us out if you know anything specific worth following.

_______________________

Boston: What fascinates me about the Abramoff saga is how it feels that we're just beginning to learn the scope; I'm starting to think that Ed Buckham may be a more significant figure than Abramoff when this all plays out. Is Sue working on a book?

R. Jeffrey Smith: we're not at present working on a book about this, but if publishers are interested, we're happy to take their calls. meanwhile, you should -- if you have not done so already -- look at the article we published on march 26 about mr. buckham. my instincts tell me that you will be reading more about mr. buckham in the future.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: Speaking of Iraq, were there any contenders from journalists in Iraq? Some of the reporting from outside the Green Zone has been tremendous.

Susan Schmidt: I am going to try to get a link put up here to Steve Fainaru's wonderful reporting for the Post. It was a finalist for the Pulitzer in foreign reporting.

_______________________

Anonymous: Is the Pulitzer an award onto itself, or is there a trophy that says Pulitzer Prize on it? If not, what should a Pulitzer prize look like? (A Pen breaking a sword in two?)

R. Jeffrey Smith: this is a first for me, so i'm no expert. but the pulitzer is represented, to tbe best of my knowledge, by a written certificate, and a cash gift. a gold medal might go to the winner of the public service award. we can give you a better report after the pulitzer luncheon at columbia university in late may.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Steve Fainaru: 2006 Pulitzer Prize Finalist in Category of International Reporting

_______________________

Alabama: Congratulations to both of you, and the following is by no means meant as a disparagement of your excellent work.

The Pulitzers have been criticized for playing favorites with large-circulation newspapers, and rewarding work that only large papers can afford to do. A paper with a big staff can afford to put two reporters on a year-long investigation. A small newspaper obviously doesn't have that luxury, and smaller newspapers often don't get consideration for Pulitzers until something like a disaster occurs in their hometown (as an earlier poster pointed out).

My question, then: Do you think the Pulitzers, like other journalism honors, should hand out awards based on circulation? For instance, one beat reporting award for a paper of 200,000 or more, one for 100,000 to 200,000, etc.?

Susan Schmidt: It's probably true that the big papers win more often, but they are the only ones that can foot the bill for some expensive enterprises, like foreign reporting. When there are big pressing national and international issues, the papers that cover those areas--by definition the bigger papers--are probably going to win many prizes. Still, even tiny papers can win, like the Point Reyes Light a number of years ago.

_______________________

Burke, Va.: Congratulations to all of you, you all desrve it, and I'd like to give a special thumbs-up to Robin Givhan. Whether I agree with it each time or not, I love the way she looks at the nonverbal information being given with fashion by the politicians.

Susan Schmidt: She has invented a whole new genre of fashion reporting.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Ms. Schmidt,

When asked about the preponderance of Bush-bashing stories winning Pulitzers, you wrote: The press tends to report aggressively on whichever party is in power in the White House, especially when they have been there for a while.

That's interesting. Because when I looked back at the Pulitzer Prize winners from 1993-2000, I found only one - Maureen Dowd - who wrote anything critical of the Clinton administration.

So given this discrepancy in awards between the Clinton and Bush years, is the Pulitzer Prize board left-leaning?

R. Jeffrey Smith: let me step into this discussion. this newspaper, and many others, reported aggressively about every aspect of the clinton administration, and gave ample voice to those who found fault with its activites. i personally wrote many article about its foreign policy blunders -- as well as some of its successes. sue wrote many articles about the lewinsky/whitewater mess. just ask the Clinton PR people whether THEY felt we were being soft. you won't get the answer your question seems to anticipate.

_______________________

Susan Schmidt: Thanks all for your questions today.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.