Liberal Fascists Strip Pulitzer Nominations From World's Greatest Pundit Jonah Goldberg
Rend your clothes, tear your hair, and weep weep for Doughy Pantload, as Liberal Fascists have ripped his two Pulitzer Prize nominations from his cold dead hands. Wait, Jonah Goldberg was nominated twice for the Pulitzer Prize? No, and the Pulitzer people are really, really tired of people claiming they were "nominated" when they sent in $50 and six Wheaties box tops.
But what if Jonah Goldberg had been nominated! (He is at least as worthy of the honor as Kathleen Parker!)
Maybe it would have been for this brilliant thing where he suggested the GOP purge known-statist Theodore Roosevelt:
But T.R. saw the State (hopefully with himself at the helm) as the arbiter of what did and did not represent a “benefit” to the community. That this is a deeply statist mindset seems pretty obvious to me, not least because T.R. admits that he thinks this standard should usher in a new era of greater state power and “governmental interference with social and economic conditions.” …. T.R. worship is nonetheless fraught with peril for conservatives.
Teddy Roosevelt is a Communist Socialist Maoist Kenyan, aiyeee! Dig him up and BURN HIM. And that is all we are going to cite in our search for Jonah Goldberg's Pulitzer-worthy columns, because we can feel our brains and eyeballs turning to Jell-O salad, and so we have to stop.
Anyway, Mr. Pantload has promised to stop saying he had twice been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, and also it wasn't he who put that on his book cover, and those, coincidentally, are the same two things he said last time everybody busted him on this.
After the hubbub, Goldberg's speaker's bureau removed the Pulitzer claim from his online bio, as documented by Daily Kos.
Goldberg told msnbc.com on Tuesday that he didn't recall any of this. "In all honesty, I don't recall ever being 'called' on this."
When contacted on Tuesday by email, Goldberg replied at first, "Nominated by the Tribune syndicate. Never said I was a finalist. There's a distinction."
When told that he's not a nominee either, and isn't listed among the nominees on the Pulitzer website, Goldberg replied, "I'll check it out and have 'em remove it if you're right. Happily. If it's not kosher, I shouldn't have it in there. Period."
Then he emailed them back, but off the record, because he is a profile in courage, the end. [ MSNBC / DailyKos ]
Anarchy. Badly organized, dirt-poor, subsistence-living anarchy.
Journalists rely heavily on sources who speak off the record. Any journalist who fails to observe the rules won&#039;t get anything, from anybody, ever again, which rather takes the fun out of the job. When your boss finds out that you&#039;re now useless, it may even take the job out of the job. Not to mention that &quot;burning the source&quot; may have <a href="http:\/\/%29http:\/\/ajr.org\/article.asp\?id=1553" target="_blank">legal consequences</a>.
Much as you&#039;d like to see an exception made for sources who are lying douchebags, the consensus is that the rule works best if it&#039;s absolute, because you never know when your lying douchebag of a source might turn out to be an honest (just this one time) douchebag.
That said, what the fuck Goldbrick accomplished with an off-the-record retraction is beyond me ... the redacted bio speaks for itself. Hard to believe he&#039;s too dimiwitted to put out an honest-but-disingenuous &quot;I was unable to verify that I had been nominated.&quot;