More on Pulitzer’s Editorial Cartooning No-Prize

Mike Peterson has weighed in with his and a few others opinions,
but the outrage is large and justifiable.

The major slight is to the nominated cartoonists of course, and we’ll return to them in a moment.
But let’s not forget the affront shown to this year’s jury.

Two Pulitzer Prize-winning Cartoonists, two Editorial Page Editors, and a Curator of Comics. This was arguably one of the most qualified juries in years, putting in a lot of time and effort for very little or no compensation to winnow the entries down to three excellent choices for The Board to pick. Their work, too, was snubbed.

Juror Signe Wilkinson expressed her thoughts about the three only getting participation ribbons: 

Faced with 3 superb, uniquely talented cartoonists to choose from, the Pulitzer Prize board probably just couldn’t bring themselves to decide among them. S

Which strikes me as dripping with as much sarcasm as J.P.‘s comment here.

Signe then retweeted the AAEC statement seen in Mike’s column,
and Ted Rall‘s observation (though not his more blunt feedback).


This morning Clay Jones devoted a cartoon and a column to the No-Prize:

This year, the announcement was delayed until June when it’s usually done in April. So, the anxiety for journalists is intensified and prolonged. The journalists waiting for this include political cartoonists.

After much waiting and anticipation, the Pulitzer Prize Committee slapped the entire profession of political cartooning in the face. Even for those cartoonists who didn’t enter, slappity slap slap. No prize for you. Can we have our entry fees returned? I mean, we entered because you gave us the impression there would be a winner. Even the Soup Nazi gave George Costanza a refund.

Yesterday, the Pulitzer people refused to give their annual award to a political cartoonist. Why? We don’t know.

A great read from a cartoonist’s point of view. (Then watch Clay draw the cartoon.)

For many more reactions from cartoonists and concerned citizens
scroll down the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists Twitter feed.

And then the Twitter reaction from everyone. 

It seems that The Pulitzer Prizes, for this year at least, agree with The New York Times that
editorial cartoonists serve no purpose.


2 thoughts on “More on Pulitzer’s Editorial Cartooning No-Prize

  1. This is just sad. And wrong. And ignorant. And short-sighted. And dumb. And needless. And ____________.

Comments are closed.