National Enquirer denied its Pulitzer Prize

The Pulitzer Prizes were announced this afternoon and the National Enquirer was not among the recipients.

The Pulitzer committee was duty bound to accept the Enquirer's nomination, as the weekly's coverage of the John Edwards sex, love child and potential Constitutional scandal was exemplary, achieved against great odds and in the face of disdain from the mainstream media.


Readers of this site will not be surprised by the slight, however. Somewhat beneath the mainstream radar but fiercely debated in Internet and journalism circles was the Pulitzers' summary rejection one year ago of Tabloid Baby's nomination for its coverage of the post season travesties of the Israel Baseball League. Pulitzer gatekeeper Sig Gissler wouldn't let our nomination across the threshold.

The tabloid banner waves high, however, and we expect that Barry Levine and his colleagues at the Enquirer will one day get their due.

(And we can at least take heart in the fact the Las Vegas Sun and Las Vegas Review-Journal, so lax and deficient in their coverage of the death of local superstar Danny Gans, also came up empty-handed.)

Pulitzers accept National Enquirer noms

Congratulations to Tabloid Baby pal Barry Levine, executive editor of The National Enquirer and his team, as The Pulitzer Prize Board has officially accepted The Enquirer's submissions for breaking the John Edwards scandal.

The proud tabloid makes history being deemed qualified to compete with so-called "mainstream" news organization for journalism's tarnished yet most prestigious prize. The Enquirer is in the running for the Pulitzer in two categories: "Investigative Reporting" and "National News Reporting" for The National Enquirer staff.

A dark day for Sig Gissler

Readers of this site know that this is not the first time a tabloid organization has attenpted to be recognized by our ivy-walled, ivory tower fellow hacks.

Last April, Pulitzer gatekeeper Sig Gissler rejected our Pulitzer nominations for our coverage of the Israel Baseball League scandals out of hand, and in another history-making move, even returned our admission check-- repelled as he was by the "tabloid" moniker.

We're glad to have paid the price to pave the way.

The National Enquirer will enter John Edwards scandal coverage for a Pulitzer Prize: Well-deserved, but good luck getting past Sig Gissler!

The National Enquirer plans to enter its coverage of the John Edwards paternity scandal for a Pulitzer Prize.

"It's clear we should be a contender for this," executive editor and Tabloid Baby pal Barry Levine told the Washington Post today, after the former presidential candidate admitted what the newspaper had been reporting all along: that he fathered a child out of wedlock in an adulterous affair. "The National Enquirer, a supermarket tabloid, was able to publish this reporting."


Levine, and the Enquirer undoubtedly deserve the Pulitzer. They championed the story. They dedicated the resources and moved forward against the lies and brickbats hurled their way, while the lazy, "mainstream" media fed off their scraps and covered the story from a distance until it was safe to go in for the kill and start buying up the players for headlines and morning show interviews.

Ultimately, we predict the Enquirer won't get a Pulitzer, most likely because old Sig Gissler, the Pulitzer prize administrator, probably won't even let the nomination reach the Prize Board.

Readers of this site will recall the uproar when Gissler screwed TabloidBaby.com and its correspondent Elli Wohlgelernter out of a Pulitzer when he rejected our nominations for the groundbreaking coverage of the Israel Baseball League scandals out of hand-- citing some technical clause for refusing to let the Pulitzer boardmembers decide for themselves.

Mr. Pulitzer may have been a tabloid king, but the Pulitzers' Ivy League ivory tower does not admit tabloid journos.

Tabloid Baby makes Baseball Hall of Fame

Our Man Elli in Israel has discovered a fact that Pulitzer Prize gatekeeper Sig Gissler might have found interesting before unceremoniously rejecting our nomination: Tabloid Baby has earned a place in The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown!

Our groundbreaking, exclusive, historic coverage of the benighted single season and wacky aftermath of the Israel Baseball League was cited as a major source in The Cooperstown Symposium on Baseball and American Culture, 2007-2008, discussed at length in the hallowed Baseball Hall of Fame, and immortalized in print in the recent book edited by William M. Simons.

Gaining special attention was Elli Wohlgelernter's bombshell exposé of the IBL, an article that first appeared on this site exclusively days after the season ended as Can't Anyone Here Run This Game, and causing an international sports firestorm the likes of which would not be seen until the Tiger Woods scandal.


Read all of Tabloid Baby's Israel Baseball League coverage at our Baseball in Israel site.

Columbia School of Journalism fetes Harvey Levin amid his latest TMZ scandal

So who else noticed that the week the Los Angeles Police Department placed two cops on leave in its probe of how its evidence photo of the beaten pop star Rihanna wound up on the corporate porn-pushing gossip site TMZ.com, TMZ's shaved bronzed midget frontman Harvey Levin was in New York cruising for recruits and being feted at the Columbia School of f'ing Journalism?

While two women are left hanging and facing the loss of their jobs because the Time Warner-AOL operation (and CNN cousin) once again perverted the justice system (tainting the jury pool and all that) when it allegedly paid $62,500 for the celeb S&M porn, little Levin was lecturing a room of privileged J-school students the way he charms his boy team on TV, dressed WeHo Polo shirt clone and seducing resumes from the elite with his tales of big money and Hollywood glamour amid lowbrow taunts that the newspaper and magazine industry are dead. This is the same Columbia School of Journalism whose Sig Gissler rejected Tabloid Baby's Pulitzer Prize nominations before the Pulitzer board could decide for themselves.

TMZ survives and thrives because the clueless old school mainstream operations suppport and use it as a source. We don't think TMZ would fare quite so well in the rough and tumble journo world without the hundreds of thousands of dollars his corporate overlords give the staff to throw around to corrupt public officials and ruin it for the rest of us by making real whistleblowers gunshy,

A tip of the Tabloid Baby hat, meanwhile, to The Enterprise Report, which does it on a shoestring and has been in front of the pack and on top of the latest TMZ/Levin scandal from the start...

Las Vegas journo: Tabloid Baby coverage of Danny Gans mystery is "beneath contempt"

"I looked over what
you've been 'reporting.'
It's all beneath contempt...
Pulitzer Prize winning
newspapers have better
uses of their resources
than to 'investigate' something
that public documents
will reveal soon enough anyway."

Finally, a member of the Las Vegas media elite has explained to us why he and other trained, veteran journalists have kept a hands-off approach to the mystery surrounding the death of local superstar Danny Gans. While the premature deaths of Las Vegas stalwarts like Elvis Presley, Liberace, Anna Nicole Smith and Ted Binion were covered in detail by the local and national media, Gans' passing at the age of 52 has not received any critical or investigative treatment by reporters or editors, who've instead relied in statements by the local police and Gans' employer Steve Wynn to provide the sketchy details before settling in for a lengthy wait until the Clark County Coroner's Office releases an "official" statement on the cause of Gans' death.

Gans was a local hero. One newscaster this week referred to him as a "religious leader." One newspaper entered into a book deal with Gans' family and manager.

So we were waiting for the Thursday publication of the "alternative" Las Vegas Weekly to perhaps find some answers to the questions and speculation that have filled the information void since Gans' death was reported on Friday morning.


The story, labeled as "News" and written by veteran journalist Steve Friess, began promisingly enough:

"...How does a 52-year-old health nut die in his sleep?

"Here are my first and second comments, in this order: 'Oh, that’s so sad.' Then, after a long pause: 'But I wonder who’s going to care.'

"Yes, that sounds cold. But I meant—and Miles got it immediately—who in the national media will recognize this passing as a significant story? That’s my job and to some extent my function in this community, to determine what of the local news rises to the level of broader significance and interest, and which publication is going to want me to document it..."

How does a 52-year-old health nut die in his sleep? Alas, Friess was not out to dig up those facts. His story turned out to be just another palm-greasing eulogy praising the local religious leader:

"...Danny Gans wasn’t just talking a good game— he meant and lived a set of priorities regardless of whether he was bypassing fame or fortune or critical acclaim. Were he alive today to comment on his death, he wouldn’t give a damn that he never got to release that album or that the national media took scant notice of his demise. He would only care that he won’t meet his grandchildren, that his wife is now alone, that his friends have lost a golfing buddy.

"All those survivors may feel cheated by fate, but they’re not going to feel cheated by him. He gave them as much as he could. That’s what Gans was trying to say all that time. And if we finally get it— if we set aside our notions of what constitutes a successful life for someone in the public eye— then maybe, just maybe, this will be his greatest and most lasting impression."

As it turns out, The Las Vegas Weekly is owned by the same company that publishes the daily Las Vegas Sun, the 2009 Pulitzer Prize winner that is also ignoring the story.

We emailed Steve Friess this morning:

Steve,

"Why is no one in the Las Vegas media investigating what happened to Danny Gans?"

Steve Friess responded:

"Uh, because until the toxicology reports come back it would be irresponsible and inappropriate for legitimate reporters to write baseless speculation? Because a man is dead and a family is in mourning and the state of the nation is not dependent upon exacerbating their grief? Because Pulitzer Prize winning newspapers have better uses of their resources than to 'investigate' something that public documents will reveal soon enough anyway?

"I looked over what you've been 'reporting.' It's all beneath contempt. Ginning up Robin Leach's 'rumors' when the rumors he's referring to have nothing to do with Gans' death, implying an inappropriate relationship with Alicia Jacobs, attacking the local press for having a modicum of dignity and restraint on a story that will come out anyway ... I need to go take a shower now. Blech."

We emailed back:

"Thanks for the honest response, Steve. Can we quote you?"

Steve Friess, well known as the author of the book, Gay Vegas ("Don’t miss the pictorial on Vegas’ most phallic!") responded quickly:

"you bet. this shit'll be on my blog in a few minutes anyway."

Sigh. Not another media feud!

Las Vegas newspaper makes book deal with Danny Gans' manager and family

This morning brings another clue in the mysterious death of Las Vegas headliner Danny Gans-- a clue to why we should not expect the Las Vegas news media to investigate, or even report accurately the facts about how the 52-year-old Born Again Christian, former athlete and "health nut" died suddenly in his bed last Friday morning:

The Las Vegas Review-Journal, the city's leading daily newspaper (and the one that did not win a 2009 Pulitzer Prize) has entered into a deal with Gan's manager and family to publish his autobiography.

The deal is reported by the Review-Journal's gossip reporter, Norm Clarke:

"The family of Danny Gans is moving ahead with plans to have his autobiography published next month. "Gans' manager, Chip Lightman, and Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick met on Monday, and 'we're crossing the T's as we move forward on a handshake,' Frederick said. "The R-J is planning a mid-May ad campaign to allow people to reserve copies. "'We are proceeding at a fast pace to have the book printed and available in June,' Frederick said. "Lightman said the book will also be printed as a hard-cover collectors item and hopefully will be available in June. "The book, tentatively titled 'Voices In My Head,' will be published by Stephens Press, a division of Stephens Media, the parent company of the Review-Journal."

The Review-Journal's actions seem to indicate that the Gans moneymaking machine is still running strong, and as in the case of Elvis Presley, the city and its related businesses plan to reap money from him for years to come. The deal also explains why this particular news organization is ignoring the Gans story.

Sig Gissler, take note: The "watchdog" has economic incentive to ignore the truth and "print the legend."

Photo: Beverly Poppe

Danny Gans sidebar: Sig Gissler can kiss our ass!

More than one reader has pointed out the irony that TabloidBaby.com is alone in seeking answers in the unexplained death of Las Vegas headliner Danny Gans, while the Las Vegas news media, from its television news teams to its Pulitzer Prize-winning newspapers have done little more than seek eulogies from the likes of Carrot Top and George Wallace while ignoring the questions swirling around the tragedy, including rumours that range from speculation that steroid abuse may have contributed to Gans' untimely passing, to the conspiracy theory that the "death in bed" story was concocted to cover up a fatal DUI accident.

Did we say “Pulitzer Prize-winning?” Yes, remember that only last month the Las Vegas Sun was awarded a 2009 Pulitzer Prize for public service-- but only after Pulitzer administrator Sig Gissler arbitrarily rejected TabloidBaby.com’s Pulitzer nomination (without letting the Pulitzer board see it), claiming that this international news organization did not qualify as an Internet news site "primarily dedicated to original news reporting and coverage of ongoing stories."

Sig Gissler's obvious prejudice and elitism notwithstanding, subsequent events would indicate that the Pulitzer’s announcement that Internet news organizations would be eligible for the Prize was a sham. Sig Gissler himself let it slip that the awards were made to prop up the dying newspaper industry when he said, "These are tough times for America's newspapers, but amid the gloomy talk, the newspaper winners and the finalists are heartening examples of the high-quality journalism that can be found in all parts of the United States... The watchdog still barks, and the watchdog still bites."

Well, while TabloidBaby.com continues its decade-long tradition of leading the pack-- on a daily basis-- in the coverage of compelling, important stories, the oldstream media is showing just why the gloom has settled in. In Las Vegas, the watchdog isn’t even sniffing around the biggest story in years.

As for Sig Gissler, he was barking up the wrong tree.

And he can bite this. Ha!

Oldstream media sidesteps coverage of the Tabloid Baby Pulitzer Prize screwing by Sig Gissler-- but the story manages to slip out between the lines

A postscript to the international Pulitzer Prize scandal that began on this site when we revealed that Pulitzer board administrator Sig Gissler decided unilaterally to reject Tabloid Baby's Pulitzer Prize nomination without even giving the Pulitzer board the chance to consider the entry materials:

Not surprisingly, the oldstream media have ignored Tabloid Baby's connection to and authorship of tthe story, which exposed as a sham and charade the Pulitzer board's December 8th announcement that Internet-only news organizations would be considered for the prize.

Chief among the nose-thumbers is the quirky Jim Romenesko, author of the aggregator site that was once called Media Gossip, but which now sports his name and is connected to some kind of journalism "institute" called "Poynter." Romenesko, a former crime reporter, now kisses up caters to the ivory tower j-school handwringers and 20th century print types and ignores our exclusives pointedly (or "poynteredly").

He does however, support the story we broke by linking to oldstream print stories on the subject, like the Christian Science Monitor article, "How e-Pulitzers can elevate journalism" and which Romenesko, who could elevate his own role as a media intermediary by recognizing great online journalists like the crew at TabloidBaby.com, links as "It's time to reinvent the Pulitzer Prizes," which says in part:

"This week's announcement of the journalism Pulitzer Prizes – usually a welcome jolt for the ailing American newspaper business – fell short of delivering the transfusion that is needed to bring the awards into the 21st century. In fact, the Pulitzers spoke hardly at all to the generations that now tap their news from a computer keyboard, or thumb it out of a cellphone.

"It's time to reinvent the Pulitzers... With the first Pulitzers in 1917, reporters and editors suddenly found themselves mentioned alongside celebrated novelists and playwrights. Founder Joseph Pulitzer's idea to elevate the best US newspapers helped usher in an era of excellent journalism.

"Today, if the Pulitzers recognized excellence across a wider range of print and electronic content, they could help lift journalism once more.

"Last December, the Pulitzer organization sought a desperately needed boost – in part, perhaps, to spare the awards from becoming an anachronism... It decided to allow entries in all 14 journalism categories from web-only news organizations. Of the 1,028 total journalism submissions from around the country, there were 65 entries from online enterprises. Thirty-seven online-only news organizations entered. But only one was mentioned by name in the Pulitzer results...

"Sig Gissler, the administrator of the Pulitzers, won't speculate what further changes the Pulitzer Board might make at its next meeting. The board 'will continue to monitor online development,' he says, and is likely to consider some changes in future rules and guidelines. But for now, 'I think the board regards this as a successful step forward,' he adds.

"'Good journalism these days increasingly uses many tools, and there is a convergence of sorts that occurs if you're taking full advantage of what you can do online,' says Margaret Wolf Freivogel...a Pulitzer juror this year...

"Dan Gillmor of Arizona State University's Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, caused a stir last year when he made his own recommendations public – among them a strategic expansion of Pulitzer categories to reflect today's converging media. 'Become the top prizes for journalism of any kind. Do away entirely with the distinction between newspapers and other media,' he suggested. 'There's no real alternative.'

"...As it was at the start of Pulitzer's 20th century, its prizes should be the standard of excellence for all American text-based journalism.

"That would once more elevate journalism – and elevate the Pulitzers, too. And it just might make old Joseph Pulitzer smile."

(Was TabloidBaby.com worthy of Pulitzer consideration? Head to our Baseball in Israel archive site to see all our US-Israel baseball coverage and judge for yourself.)

Legendary journalist and Dupont Award winner Abramovitz expresses shock, outrage over Tabloid Baby Pulitzer Prize c*ck block by Sig Gissler

Scandal continues to roil beneath the surface of the 2009 Pulitzer Prizes, as it was revealed here that the Pulitzer Prize board's intentions to have the entry field opened to non-print Internet news organizations was thwarted by its administrator and gatekeeper, Sig Gissler, who unilaterally prevented Tabloid Baby's Pulitzer Prize nomination from reaching the prize committee for consideration, thereby stealing from journalist Elli Wohlgelernter and the Tabloid Baby team the honor they surely would have won for their exclusive investigative coverage of the United States-based financial scandals surrounding the Israel Baseball League.

"Who is this man who has usurped transparency in the selection of prizes by the Pulitzer committee? It's shocking to believe that one human being makes the decisions, and makes them in an awful, undignified and disrespectful way."

The latest to throw his (cowboy) hat into the ring is journalism legend, author, tabloid television pioneer, practicing attorney and 1984 DuPont Award winner Rafael Abramovitz, who, like other hardworking, experienced journalism professionals who do not mix in the rarified ivory tower journalism school circles of those whose entrenched ways are leading the death of the newspaper industry, scoffs at Sig Gissler's contention that the respected, ten-year-old Tabloid Baby news organization does not "genuinely fit the criteria"-- and that its entry was not "in a binder."


"There was no transparency in the awards handed out by the prize committee this year," Abramovitz said this morning. "And I'm talking in terms of the decisions about nominations of Internet news organizations. It's shocking to believe that one human being makes the decisions, and makes them in an awful, undignified and disrespectful way.

"Who is this man who has usurped transparency in the selection of prizes by the Pulitzer committee?

"Does the word 'committee' mean anything to him?

"This is an outrage!"

Chuckling over that last line, the Resistol-sporting New York City-based journo continued in all seriousness:

"The most shocking aspect of this is what happened to the nomination of Tabloid Baby, which is known for its unique, imaginative, often fantastic reportage and has gotten that reportage on the Internet well in advance of other so-called mainline Internet sites. Print organizations are no match for Tabloid Baby. After all, it's there on the cusp of instant reportage.

"And this man whose name I have deliberately forgotten? The Pulitzer Prize committee, if they want to maintain their prestige role in journalism excellence, might want to forget it as well."

Elli Wohlgelernter responds after being f*cked out of a Pulitzer Prize by Sig Gissler

"Needless to say, I am very disappointed, not just for the decision to reject the application, but for the reason given. If this wasn't original news reporting and coverage of an ongoing story-- over a year's worth of exclusive after exclusive coverage-- I don't know what is."

Elli Wohlgelernter reacted today to news that Sig Gissler, administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes, decided on his own, without consultation, to reject Tabloid Baby's Pulitzer Prize nomination without even giving the Pulitzer board the chance to consider the entry materials, thereby denying Tabloid Baby and Wohlgelernter the award they so obviously deserved.

Former print journalist and newspaper defender Sig Gissler may have thought he was striking a blow for old school print journalism and slamming the door on upstart wiseass Internet journos when he made the controversial decision, but in doing so, he shut out a news team whose four main contributors have more than 150 years of journalism experience among them (all of which began-- and continues-- in newspapers), including veteran print and television journalist Wohlgelernter, who led the coverage of the US-backed scheme to bring professional baseball to Israel (see the complete Tabloid Baby coverage here).

Wohlgelernter, known in these parts as Our Man Elli in Israel, is a New York-born and bred journo now based in Jerusalem, said today:

"Needless to say, I am very disappointed, not just for the decision to reject the application, but for the reason given. Tabloid Baby was instrumental in exposing the ongoing sham that was perpetrated against the American Jewish and Israeli communities, while the rest of the mainstream media in Israel and the U.S. ignored-- even covered up-- the story.

"If this wasn't original news reporting and coverage of an ongoing story-- over a year's worth of exclusive after exclusive coverage -- I don't know what is. And it continues even this week, with Tabloid Baby's report on the Israel Baseball League declaring Chapter 11. How many millions of dollars were raised from American Jews, and where did the money go? Where is the rest of the media?"

In light of the insult lobbed by Sig Gissler, it's worth noting Elli's original expression of humility when he got word of the nomination in December:

"I could never have imagined in my 35-year career that I would be honored and blessed in such a way as to be nominated for a Pulitzer. When I was a kid just dreaming about the business, the Pulitzer meant more to me than the Nobel Prize... A Pulitzer? It only validates all the hard work that's gone into all the exposés that Tabloid Baby and I have uncovered and revealed..."

Sig Gissler's action has led to outrage among Internet and new journalism professionals.

Luke Ford: "Tabloid Baby shut out of Pulitzers"

Ur- and uberblogger Luke Ford reflects the growing outrage among Internet and new journalism professionals over the unilateral decision by Pulitzer Prize gatekeeper and administrator Sig Gissler to stop the Pulitzer board from considering Tabloid Baby's landmark original, investigative coverage of the US-based Madoff-like Israel Baseball League scandals from being considered by the Pulitzer committee for a 2009 Pulitzer Prize.

Pulitzer outrage: Evidence shows Sig Gissler turned 2009 prizes into "Soylent Green deathbed handjob for terminally-ill newspaper industry"

The scandal over the 2009 Pulitzer Prizes expands today as the Pulitzer administrator's unilateral rejection of Tabloid Baby's nomination is shown to reflect a general anti-Internet bias while revealing yesterday's awards as little more than a Soylent Green deathbed handjob for a terminally-ill newspaper industry.

The claims that the nomination of TabloidBaby.com for its exclusive, groundbreaking coverage of the United States-based effort to plant professional baseball in Israel was blocked unfairly by Pulitzer administrator Sig Gissler (before the Pulitzer committee could see or judge it) is supported by other coverage and statements by Gissler himself.

Tabloid Baby’s nomination was encouraged by the Pulitzer committee's December 8th announcement that the 2009 entry field would be expanded to include "news organizations that publish only on the Internet." No Internet-based news groups, however, were among the Pulitzer winners, and in announcing the prizes yesterday, elderly former print journo Gissler admitted that the awards were a sop to the ailing print industry.

From Reuters:

“The strength of the prize winners' work shows the power and significance of print journalism, said Sig Gissler, administrator of the Pulitzers.

“Newspapers are suffering badly in the recession, with massive job losses, elimination of sections and cancellation of home delivery. A few have ceased publication, slashed salaries and filed for bankruptcy.

"’The watchdog still barks. The watchdog still bites,’ Gissler said. ‘Who would be doing this day to day if we didn't have newspapers?’

“None of the prizes went to stories about the economy or the financial crisis..."

The same Reuters dispatch shows that gatekeeper Gissler and the committee may indeed have been biased against the word “Tabloid”— not to mention this site’s praise of Rupert Murdoch as a champion of journalism (and former boss):

“The Wall Street Journal, one of the nation's most prestigious daily papers, did not win a prize this year.

“The paper has not won a Pulitzer since Rupert Murdoch bought it through News Corp's purchase of Dow Jones & Co in December 2007. In the previous 10 years, the Journal won Pulitzers in all but two years.”

Ultimately there were no online winners in the 2009 Pulitzers.

From Editor & Publisher:

“There were 65 online-only entries this year, the first time it was allowed, but 21 were rejected because they came from news sites that do not do ‘primarily’ original reporting and are mainly ‘aggregators.’"

TabloidBaby.com, it should be pointed out, is not an "aggregator," and has been lauded for its original reporting— reporting that is all too often stolen by the print media without attribution. It has in fact, called out major newspapers for doing so-- which may have been another factor in Gissler's decision to cut off Tabloid Baby's nomination at the knees.

Pulitzer outrage spreads!

The New York-based Gawker.com media site is among the Internet journalism organizations that have expressed outrage over Pulitzer Prize administrator Sig Gissler's unilateral decision to reject TabloidBaby.com's 2009 nomination.

Sig Gissler f*cks us out of a Pulitzer Prize

The Pulitzer Prizes for Journalism were announced today. You may have noticed that Tabloid Baby was not among the winners.

And for good reason.

The Pulitzers' gatekeeper wouldn’t let us in.

The Pulitzer Prize board had announced on December 8, 2008 that it had expanded its field to include submissions from Internet news organizations like ours:

New York, Dec. 8, 2008 – The Pulitzer Prizes in journalism, which honor the work of American newspapers appearing in print, have been expanded to include many text-based newspapers and news organizations that publish only on the Internet, the Pulitzer Prize Board announced today.

The Board also has decided to allow entries made up entirely of online content to be submitted in all 14 Pulitzer journalism categories…

So in January 2009, the nomination of TabloidBaby.com, an internationally-known, followed and copied Internet news organization of ten years standing, was tendered to the committee that gives away the Prize named after one of the legendary names in Tabloid Journalism.

Only to be stopped at the door by the board's administrator, a man named Sig Gissler.

Who is this Sig Gissler? Who is he to decide what the committee should consider? After all, it was his name and phone number that was included on the press release announcing the inclusion of Internet journalists. Judging by the list of 2009 Pulitzer Prize winners released today-- a day the New York Times leads with a waterboarding story lifted from Internet bloggers, while new newspaper closures are announced) and the experience this site received at his hands, it appears that the apparent septuagenarian Sig Gissler is an old white shirt-and-tie print journo from days gone by, waging a last-stand defense of the newspaper industry as it circles the bowl.

The announcement about the Pulitzer committee considering Internet organizations? That was just a publicity and credibility ploy. The Pulitzers were trying to look cool and "with it," like back in Sid's middle-age, when an old square would put on a Beatles wig and shout "Yeah, yeah, yeah!"

Screwed

Following the December 8th announcment, Tabloid Baby's entries and entry material were mailed to the Pulitzer committee in January. This site's editor Burt Kearns and correspondent Elli Wohlgelernter were nominated for 2009 Pulitzer Prizes for their "exclusive online coverage and editorials on U.S. businessmen's involvement in the fall of professional baseball in Israel” in two categories: "a distinguished example of investigative reporting by an individual or team, presented as a single article or series, in print or online or both"; and "a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs, in print or online or both."

In February 18, the Tabloid Baby office received an email from Pulitzer Prize administrator Sig Gissler.

“When we saw the email marked ‘Pulitzer entry,’ we were expecting congratulations,” says contributor and media liason Sam Peters. “Instead, we were sucker-punched.”

The email read:

Dear Mr. Kearns:

Thank you for your interest in the Pulitzer Prizes. We would like to accept your entry but it does not fit within our rules.

Submitted online material must have appeared on a Web site "primarily dedicated to original news reporting and coverage of ongoing stories." In our guidelines, we urge entrants to ask themselves if they "genuinely fit the criteria" and we specify that an entry's cover letter should provide "ample evidence" of an online-only news organization's "primary devotion to original news reporting." We do not find the requirements to have been met.

Further, the entry is improperly prepared. It should be in a binder with each exhibit clearly numbered.

I am sorry to disappoint you. Although entry fees are non-refundable, we will make an exception in your case because this is a transitional period for the Pulitzers. In due course, we will return your check.

Sincerely,

Sig Gissler, administrator
Pulitzer Prizes

To quote Mr. Peters, "WTF?"

Confident that our website had met all criteria as described on the entry form as "an eligible news organization that publishes--in print or online--at least weekly; that is primarily dedicated to original news reporting and coverage of ongoing stories; and that adheres to the highest journalistic principles," we had but one question for the fussy Sig Gissler:

"Was the decision to reject our entry that of the Pulitzer Board or your own?"

His reply?

Dear Mr. Kearns,

Eligibility decisions are made by the administrator, implementing rules established by the Pulitzer Board.

Sincerely,
Sig Gissler

Scam

So again, who is this Sig Gissler?

According to the Pulitzer and Columbia websites, Sig Gissler is a midwestern print journo from an era past who retired from active journalism in 1993 and continues to preach the old values behind the ivy-covered walls of Columbia University's School of Journalism:

"Sig Gissler has been administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes since 2002. A special faculty member at Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism, Gissler is founder of 'Let's Do It Better,' the school's national Workshops on Journalism, Race and Ethnicity. He is the former editor of the Milwaukee Journal. During his 25 years with the paper, he served as reporter, editorial page editor and associate editor before becoming editor in 1985. Gissler left the paper in 1993 to become a senior fellow at the Freedom Forum's Media Studies Center, exploring media coverage of race... In 1998, Gissler was voted teacher of the year at the journalism school..."

We'd say old Sig Gissler and his Pulitzer cronies are simply elitist, liberal j-school snobs who turn up their noses at a news organization that contains the word "tabloid"-- until we take another look and see that every winner of this year's journalism prizes is an oldstream print newspaper outfit (No Nikki Finke, no Past Deadline, no Luke Ford) and then we realize that Sig Gissler's just a square and that the significance of the Pulitzer Prizes is going the way of the newspaper.

And he still hasn't sent back the check.

(Not even worthy of Pulitzer consideration? Head to our Baseball in Israel archive site to see all our US-Israel baseball coverage and judge for yourself.)

(Top photo of Sig Gissler by Irina Slutsky)

UPDATE! "Soylent Green deathbed handjob for terminally-ill newspaper industry!"