According to Joe Strupp of Editor & Publisher magazine, The Onion was considered for a Pulitzer Prize for its post-9/11 issue, “Holy Fucking Shit: Attack on America” (apparently, the entire issue is not available in the archive):
The longtime editor [Zack Stalberg] of The Philadelphia Daily News was on the committee choosing finalists in the commentary category in 2002 when a submission from The Onion, the irreverent humor newspaper, came before the group.
“As it went around the table, you could see that people were blown away by this work,” Stalberg said about the entry, which included the paper’s mock Sept. 11 coverage. “But it was a little too different, a little too risky. I voted to make it a finalist, but nobody else did.”
Although it would be surprising to see the Pulitzer Board award its coveted medal to what is essentially a parody of a newspaper, such an incident highlights what some feel is the reverence – some might say restrictions – under which the Pulitzer judging operates.
The article goes on to mention the disparities in the selection processes and awards:
[N]early half of the finalists in the 14 journalism categories are among four major newspapers, according to a list obtained by E&P. The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post account for 20 of the 42 finalists on this list. Among the 22 others, none have a daily circulation of less than 100,000.
In the 87-year history of the Pulitzers, a non-daily paper has won only four times.
It’s a real shame that there is such a bias against smaller, less established papers, as it diminishes the distinguished reputation of the Pulitzer Prize when the process appears to be less than objective. I think it’s really cool that The Onion was at least considered, though…
