Here-here, Bob. Awards named after corrupt scum like Pulitzer and Hearst - and the reporters that write with a mind to them - are one of the (many) things that ruined this profession. No more journalism awards!
B.I., you're a very good heckler -- you picked a subject I obviously don't care to talk about. I only mentioned it in the Reinhard post because it was a fast and easy way to make my point. But you're right, "not a whit" was an exaggeration. To expand: Earlier in my career, I thought quite a lot about awards. I wanted to amass a large number of them and I'll admit I sometimes wrote with them in mind. Now I simply don't (though it's true that winning a big one every now and then wouldn't put me off too much). A lot of the change in perception is practical: When newspapers were fat and safe, awards were probably the best gauge of journalistic success. Today, it's survival itself (and hit counts).
CBS
If you want to "see BS", read Norman's May 2 post regarding the Herald's Beth Reinhard's referring to Norman as a blogger.
Norman's reaction was: "How many (other) bloggers have won 50 like journalism awards ...?"
Then, replying to one who was unimpressed by his awards proclamation, Norman wrote: "The truth is I don't care a whit about awards..."
THERE is true BS.
(Cared back then, but not at this point: more BS)
Much coverage of WFOR's woes on this blog:
http://www.sfltv.com/