Why WW's Pulitzer matters

When I heard earlier this week that Willamette Week had won the Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting with it's story about the 30 year secret of Neil Goldschmidt's sexual abuse of a 14 year-old girl I was very happy to hear that they got the credit for breaking this story. This is probably the most important story reported in the 10 years that I have payed attention to Oregon politics.

Since my initial reaction I have noticed a few other things that make this an important award, not just for Willamette Week, but for Oregon media and the internet.

The first is that I feel like this award is not just a recognition of great investigative reporting by Nigel Jaquiss, but also a recognition of the missed opportunity for everyone who new about this story, but did nothing. Of course this really points a finger at the Oregonian who had hints about this story for years, but never did an exhaustive investigation. This is the second major sex scandal that the Oregonian has missed and been scooped on, the first being Senator Bob Packwood's pattern of sexual harassment (a story which was broken by the Washington Post).

A second important aspect is the fact that this story was first broken by Willamette Week on their website. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if this was the first Pulitzer awarded for a story which was broken on the internet. Willamette Week chose to publish the first parts of this story on their website when it became clear that if they waited for their normal weekly press time they would be beaten to the punch by both the Oregonian and the Portland Tribune. For the entire narrative of the events surrounding the release of the story on the internet, read "The Background" from the award winning Willamette Week article. Also, the original posting from the Willamette Week website is available. Perhaps in the near future an online publication will be awarded a major Pulitzer award.

Finally, I think it is important to discuss the Portland Mercury's Managing Editor Phil Busse's letter to the administrator of the Pulitzer Prize. (via the Portland Communique) In his letter Phil Busse gives two reasons he was concerned by the nomination of Willamette Week for the Pulitzer. First, he feels that the story "was not uncovered in the traditional, hard-digging investigative sense of the word." This is simply not true. While the investigation did move quickly (starting in Feb. 2004 and ending in May 2004) Jaquiss did a lot of digging and investigation of the allegations. Jaquiss may have been tipped-off about the story, but that is how many great investigative stories (including Watergate) get started. Second, he says that the story was well known and makes a connection between a founder of Willamette Week (who is no longer associated with the paper) and Neil Goldschmidt. The fact that the story was well know in political circles and not reported is part of what makes the story so important. The fact that a founder of Willamette Week had a connection to Goldschmidt is not relevant to the Pulitzer award. Also, Busse misrepresents the events leading to the publication of this story. He states " . . . both the Tribune and the Oregonian broke the story days before Willamette Week's story hit the street." In reality Willamette Week published parts of this story to their website a day before the Tribune and Oregonian. Busse knows that the reason that Willamette Week published their story in their paper nearly a week later has more to do with publishing schedules (or at least he should since he also works at a weekly paper). All in all, Busse's letter comes across as sad and embarrassing. Had I know that Busse was capable of such tactics I would have not supported him in his bid for Mayor.

Posted by Noah Brimhall at April 6, 2005 12:53 PM