Making A Formerly Prestigious Award A Joke

The Pulitzer Prize is awarded by Columbia University in New York City. The award began in 1917. The Pulitzer Prize considers works in the media and the arts that have specifically been entered and reviewed for administrative compliance by the administrator’s staff. Entries must fit in at least one of the specific prize categories, and cannot simply gain entrance for being literary or musical. Works can only be entered in a maximum of two relevant categories, regardless of their properties. Recently the prize has come under fire for the fact that the articles that won the prize turned out to be false. Unfortunately, in recent years, the prize has become political.

On Monday, Newsbusters reported:

The 2026 Pulitzer Prizes were awarded Monday afternoon and, after a four-year hiatus of holding a sitting president to account, they climbed back aboard their high horses to dole out seven prizes for Trump-bashing “journalism” to the Associated Press, the Chicago Tribune, the Miami Herald, The New York Times, Reuters, and The Washington Post.

Come Tuesday morning, the Media Research Center will present the fifth annual Bulldog Awards, spotlighting outstanding achievements in conservative media across eight categories (Behind Enemy Lines, Columnist, Investigative Reporting, Podcast, Reporting, Social Media Personality, Talk Radio Host, and Lifetime Achievement) to honor those Pulitzer committee would never consider.

Back on the left, though, the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service — considered the most prestigious category — went to The Washington Post for stories that, as stated by administrator Marjorie Miller, “pierc[ed] the veil of secrecy around the Trump administration’s chaotic overhaul of federal agencies and chronicl[ed] in rich detail the human impacts of the cuts and the consequences for the country.

The article notes:

There were only four journalism categories without an anti-Trump winner and/or finalist with Breaking News going to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune for its coverage of the August 27 shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church, Texas Monthly in Features for a first-person account of the Hill Country, Washington Post in Featured Photography for a “photo essay on young family welcoming the birth of their first child as the father is slowly dying from cancer,” and Pablo Torre Finds Out in Audio for reporting about the Los Angeles Clippers.

The Pulitzer committee also hand out awards in “Books, Music, and Drama,” which are also cesspools of liberal buffoonery.

For example, Drama went to a play celebrating feminism in the 1970s while far-left pundit Jill Lepore won in History for a book whining about the Constitution as archaic and too difficult to radically change.

I believe that the Pulitzer Prize has lost touch with the American people and with reality.

Media Bias And The Shutdown

On Wednesday, Newsbusters posted an article about the media coverage of the government shutdown. The coverage is pretty much what you would expect,

The article reports:

For the past month the big three broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) have hammered both Congressional Republicans and President Trump with a wall of negative shutdown coverage, while largely shielding Democrats from blame for the now-historic gridlock.

MRC analysts examined every evening newscast on ABC, CBS, and NBC between October 1 and October 31, 2025. Across the 67 reports and news briefs which discussed the government shutdown, 87 percent of the coverage favored Democrats. Analysts found 83 evaluative statements in which anchors or reporters were critical of Republicans, but just twelve criticizing Democrats.

Summary of Findings

    • Broadcast shutdown coverage heavily favored Democrats over Republicans (87% to 13%).
    • Only 12 reports (less than one fifth) even mentioned that Senate Democrats had refused to vote for a clean continuing resolution.
    • Not a single report mentioned that Democrats voted back in March to end the same Obamacare subsidies which they’re now demanding.

The article notes:

Broadcast reporters also frequently laundered common Democrat talking points as their own objective reporting. For example, we found twelve instances in which House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) refusal to call the House back into session was framed as a major cause of the shutdown — a frequent argument by Congressional Democrats.

Republicans received no such friendly treatment. Not a single journalist on any of the three networks voiced the popular Republican talking point that Senate Democrats earlier this year had voted in favor of a continuing resolution which contained the same cuts to healthcare subsidies for which they were now keeping the government closed.

The article concludes:

Back during the 2013 government shutdown, when Democrats controlled both the White House and the Senate, the broadcast networks aired 41 reports blaming Republicans. Just 17 stories blamed both sides, and there was not a single instance in which any broadcast journalist specifically blamed Democrats.

But in 2025, with Republicans in control of both chambers and the White House, there were only ten reports that blamed Democrats exclusively. That’s less than one-third of the blame they heaped on Republicans back in 2013. Wilder still, analysts found four instances in which journalists blamed Republicans for the current shutdown.

Some of the things that should be mentioned in the news reports (but are not) are that the Obamacare subsidies go to the insurance companies. There is no guarantee of any savings being passed on to the consumer. It should also be mentioned that in many cases the money the Democrats want will go to providing medical care to people who are not citizens rather than to Americans.

At this point I am beginning to believe that the shutdown is simply a method to stop President Trump’s economic policies from succeeding. If his policies succeed, it will be a nail in the coffin of the Washington establishment. If President Trump is a successful President, it is quite possible that our next President will be another  Republican who is also not part of the deep state. Preventing that from happening is probably the root cause of the continuing shutdown.

What Difference Did It Make?

We are getting a lot of information right now about the censorship operation that Twitter was operating in order to protect the Biden campaign during the 2020 election. The information is not really surprising to those of us who were paying attention, but some of this is actually news to many Americans. On Saturday, PJ Media posted an article about the probable consequences of Twitter’s censorship.

The article notes:

Let’s begin with the premise that suppressing the content of Hunter Biden’s laptop affected the outcome of the 2020 Election. The Media Research Center (MRC) conducted one of the only polls about how the information on the computer would have affected the way people voted. MRC’s analysis found that full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate. This would have flipped all six of the swing states Biden won to Trump, giving the former President 311 electoral votes.

By that analysis, if not for the fateful decision to censor the laptop story, which Gadde and Baker had a hand in, at least five major things would be different.

The article then goes on to list five of the things that would be different:

First and foremost, it is almost certain there would not be a war in Ukraine right now. President Trump placed sanctions on the Nord 2 pipeline during his term, despite German objections. All Biden had to do was stand up to outgoing German Chancellor Angela Merkel. After all, the entire purpose of NATO is to protect the European continent from Russian aggression. Letting Germany and other western powers become dependent on Russian energy goes directly against the mission.

When the Biden administration inexplicably lifted the sanctions in May 2021, it green-lit the pipeline that would bypass Ukraine, depriving the former Soviet nation of transit revenues and making it more vulnerable to Russian aggression. Even Ukrainian President Voldymor Zelensky knew it.

…Next, the Ukrainian war led to Russia and China becoming closer allies and leading the BRIC nations. This group includes Brazil and India. Many believe these nations will be dominant suppliers of manufactured goods, services, and raw materials by 2050. There have been reports that BRIC nations and their allies want to replace the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The Biden administration seems content to let this happen without a challenge. As the kleptocrats in our government, led by Joe Biden and Wall Street, lead us into managed decline, you can thank Gadde and Baker.

Third, our European allies would not be facing an energy crisis. The war in Ukraine needlessly destroyed Nord 1, which supplied much of the continent. Additionally, the Biden administration’s not-in-my-backyard energy policy leaves the U.S. unable to meet our own energy needs, let alone help Europe.

…The same NIMBY energy policy also makes the United States less safe. In a 2020 debate, Trump explained in about 10 seconds how U.S. energy independence strengthened our foreign policy. Now, Joe Biden begs some of the worst dictators in the world for oil, and they laugh at him. Biden also drains our strategic petroleum reserves to save Democrats from getting obliterated in the midterms, leaving us less prepared.

The article concludes:

Finally, as you struggle with inflation on food and gas, know that it never needed to happen. When Trump left office, the economy was recovering from the pandemic on a V-shaped trajectory. The American Rescue Plan, the infrastructure bill, and the Inflation Reduction Act blew more money into an economy overheated by pandemic relief. When the new administration allowed even more dollars to chase fewer goods, prices rose. So, when you are rolling your eyes over your grocery bill, thank Gadde and Baker. Their manipulation of Twitter helped Joe Biden do that.

The only constitutional solution to a stolen election is the next election. Please keep that in mind. For those of you that hate President Trump, remember the good he did for the average American. You may not like his style, but he accomplished more in four years than the past five presidents. In the interest of fairness and for the good of the country, he needs to be re-elected in 2024.