The 104th class of Pulitzer Prize winners have done things a little differently from their predecessors. Indeed, doing things differently is part of their life blood – setting themselves apart from their peers to be Pulitzer worthy requires difference more than most. However, a global pandemic is bound to change the playing field, even for trailblazers such as these.
A year ago, or thereabouts, the Pulitzer prize was awarded in at Columbia University. The proximity of the audience makes for uncomfortable viewing three months into what seems like an inevitable age of social distancing. The 21 different winners, ranging from journalism to drama, letters to music, sit close together, recognised for their contribution to their respective fields.
The announcement of the 2020 Pulitzer Prize Winners marks a break from years prior. Zoom replaced the hallowed halls of times past, with winners and members of the board alike, united by these strange and uncertain times. Winners took to Twitter and YouTube to celebrate their wins and to ruminate on the future following the call, which can now be viewed on the award’s website.
The 2020 award is different for another reason too – less related to the outbreak of a global pandemic, and more closely affiliated with a recognition of a new kind of communication – this year marks the first ever award issued for an audio report, perhaps better known as a podcast.
It is believed that podcasts have been on the scene for around forty years, though they reached critical acclaim thanks to the work of Adam Curry, an MTV personality, in the early noughties. Apple, further cementing their role as trendsetters and kingmakers, introduced podcasts to iTunes in 2005. They have never looked back.
With over one million podcast series in existence at present (though it is estimated that around half of these are active) variety is arguably the last concern for the listener. As of last month, some 30 million different podcast episodes can be found on iTunes, with more available on platforms including YouTube and Spotify.
The renaissance of podcasts is perhaps indicative of a societal change. After all, humans think best in stories. According to psychologist, Jonathan Haidt: “The human mind is a story processor, not a logic processor.” Indeed, recent studies have shown that we are more than 20 times better at remembering stories than facts alone. It is perhaps for this reason that Paul Zak’s work has found that narratives release oxytocin, a neurochemical that allows us to form bonds with others.
As a form of media that relies heavily on the use of the imagination, it seems only natural that there will be sceptics. Emma Rodero, professor of communications at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, has weighed in, her expertise specifically focused on the way in which we engage with the audio. She notes that: “….you are constantly building your own images of the story in your mind, and you’re creating your own production…..and that, of course, is something you can never get with visual media.”
“Building your own images of the story in your mind” could perhaps be one of the central tenets of the Pulitzer Prize itself. Named after the nineteenth century journalist, Joseph Pulitzer, the flexibility of his will has allowed for a more liberal interpretation of the award than most. Pulitzer had intended for his prize to be used as an “incentive to excellence”, awarding prizes to acknowledge "the most disinterested and meritorious public service rendered by any American newspaper during the preceding year".
Yet Pulitzer’s foresight ensured that a range of different kinds of media were acknowledged. Bequeathing sufficient funds to Columbia University to ensure his wishes were carried out, the first awards were issued six years after his death in 1917. The overseer advisory board was established, which he gave the "power in its discretion to suspend or to change any subject or subjects, substituting, however, others in their places, if in the judgment of the board such suspension, changes, or substitutions shall be conducive to the public good or rendered advisable by public necessities, or by reason of change of time." Further to this, he willed that if entries were substandard, awards could be withheld, refusing to compromise on his original intentions.
The award has moved with the times to a degree. In 1999, they extended those applicable, allowing online journalism to be eligible for the award for the very first time. Seven years later, all 14 journalism categories could be won by online journalism, and in 2009, online only papers could receive the award. However, audio journalism still remained unrecognised by the award body.
With such an illustrious history, it seems only natural that the Pulitzer has courted their fair share of controversies. Indeed, the very fact that such esteemed papers as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, have scooped so many of the awards, has been a particular cause for concern. However, the prize has justified this, noting that, when they have countered the guidance of their juries: “The board has not been captive to popular inclinations.” The board in turn, is renowned, not only for their esteemed taste, but also for their resolute refusal to defend any and all decisions they make.
It is thus the Pulitzer Prize segues between the realms of conservatism and liberality, pushing the boundaries of culture, while also standing true to the original goals of their founder. It is perhaps worthy of note that the refusal to acknowledge audio journalism as a legitimate form of media was in part responsible for the foundation of the Peabody awards, who sought to acknowledge the contribution of the Radio where the Pulitzer would not. The introduction of an entirely new award category marks a clear distinction from their previous history.
In a press announcement, released late last year, the board announced an entirely new award in the Journalism prize category. In the words of the administrator, Dana Canedy: “The renaissance of audio journalism in recent years has given rise to an extraordinary array of non-fiction storytelling. To recognize the best of that work, the Pulitzer Board is launching an experimental category to honour it.”
The prize was said to have been awarded to recognise “a distinguished example of audio journalism that serves the public interest, characterized by revelatory reporting and illuminating storytelling.’’ Those who wished to enter their submissions had just over a month to enter, with the awards issued in April.
It seems fitting, therefore, that the Pulitzer board chose to recognise audio recording as a category worthy of merit this year in particular, though it is unlikely they foresaw what was coming. In a time of increasing uncertainty, our ability to communicate with one another has never been more important. This is well reflected in the choice of their first winner, “This American Life” a podcast that has run for a quarter of a century.
“This American Life” has covered a vast range of topics in its tenure, with an archive of over 600 episodes. From taping for 24 hours in an all-night restaurant to compiling a band from musicians’ classified ads, the show has provided depth and good humour to all that they do. In their own words: “we do journalism, but an entertaining kind of journalism that’s built around plot.” Simply put, “This American Life” strives to create “little movies for radio.”
While some of the shows are more light-hearted, the Pulitzer winning episode is anything but. An exploration of the new immigration policy under the Trump administration, the show examines the Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as “Remain in Mexico”.
According to The New York Times: “The episode reflects an increased focus on immigration and politics for the show — an elastic weekly journal of reporting, essays and occasional fiction, all based on a common theme — that has defined it in the Trump era.”
While “This American Life” was an acclaimed podcast, even before its Pulitzer win, with a total of 3.1 million downloads per episode, and a further 2.2 million listeners to its radio broadcast each week, the win has certainly served to provide the source with further legitimacy. According to the award, the show provided "revelatory, intimate journalism that illuminates the personal impact of the Trump administration's 'Remain in Mexico' policy."
The two-act show, with an introduction by Glass, comprises of interviews, by Molly O’Toole in collaboration with the Los Angeles Times, with U.S asylum officers who are forced to send migrants back to Mexico. The second act is Emily Green’s interviews with a man being sent back to Mexico who is ultimately kidnapped. According to a post on the “This American Life” website, most listeners, “had not put together what the policies really meant: tens of thousands of asylum seekers stranded on the other side of the border in shelters, on the streets, and in makeshift encampments.”
Glass finds himself heartened by receipt of the award. He notes: “It’s gratifying for the Pulitzer committee to recognize that this medium does have particular strengths, and that it can do some things better than other media can.” This is by no means to suggest that the award was expected, with Glass continuing: “I never thought I would see something like this happen. It’s the highest honor.”
Producer of the show, Nadia Reiman, considers the content of the winning episode. She says: “I think how we treat people who we don’t consider to be citizens and who have no real political power says something about who we are as a nation.”
Receiving the award, is indicative of a sea change for podcast producers around the world. According to Jay Allison founder of Transom.org, a public radio resource and producer on “The Moth Radio Hour”: “The Pulitzer codifies that what they’re doing is serious — and more difficult than it might look.”
The award, is according to Glass, “partly in recognition that we established a sort of beachhead.” It may be considered as much as a lifetime achievement award, as recognition of in depth and inquisitive journalism, the kind of which “This American Life” is renowned for producing, and the Pulitzer Award is known for recognising.
Slightly tongue in cheek, Glass concludes that, receiving the award indicates that the Pulitzer governing body has “decided audio journalism is finally here to stay.”
