How is the 2018 Pulitzer National Reporting like the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize?

The recipient's track records are equally tenuous between the stated purpose of the prizes the recipient's actual performance.

It appears that the partisans of the mainstream media are settling on a strategy to deal with the loss of institutional trust owing to their persistent partisan reporting in support of a collusion narrative for the better part of three years.

Seems like the best and the brightest have agreed on: The collusion narrative and the Mueller reporting were all just business-as-usual and nothing was amiss.

I am not sure that is the foundation on which I would seek to rebuild their reputation but other people, other views.

Not sure that is going to work out for them, but we'll see. Still, there is a lot of recalibration going on.

This page from the Pulitzer organization especially seems not just dated but an indictment. They are announcing a joint award to The New York Times and the Washington Post for their National (Mis)Reporting in all of 2017.

Or, as they put it:

For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)

Here are the award worthy news reports which warranted the recognition.

February 9, 2017 - Officials say Flynn discussed sanctions (Washington Post)
February 14, 2017 - White House received warning about Flynn (Washington Post)
March 1, 2017 - FBI was to pay author of Trump dossier (Washington Post)
March 2, 2017 - Sessions spoke twice to Russian envoy (Washington Post)
May 16, 2017 - Trump reveals secret intelligence to Russians (Washington Post)
May 23, 2017 - President asked intelligence chiefs to deny collusion (Washington Post)
June 15, 2017 - Trump’s actions now a focus of Mueller inquiry (Washington Post)
June 23, 2017 - Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault
August 1, 2017 - Trump crafted son’s statement on Russian contact (Washington Post)
December 14, 2017 - Doubting the intelligence, Trump pursues Putin and leaves a Russian threat unchecked (Washington Post)
May 17, 2017 - Trump Appealed To Comey To Haunt Inquiry Into Aide (New York Times)
July 11, 2017 - Trump’s Son Heard of Link To Moscow Before Meeting (New York Times)
July 12, 2017 - Emails Disclose Trump Son's Glee At Russian Offer (New York Times)
December 31, 2017 - Unlikely Source Propelled Russian Meddling Inquiry (New York Times)
May 20, 2017 - Trump Admitted Dismissal At F.B.I. Eased Pressure (New York Times)
May 12, 2017 - President Shifts Rationale For Firing F.B.I. Director, Calling Him a ‘Showboat’ (New York Times)
April 7, 2017 - Undisclosed On Forms, Kushner Met 2 Russians (New York Times)
April 23, 2017 - In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election (New York Times)
May 18, 2017 - Trump Transition Said to Know Of Flynn Inquiry Before Hiring (New York Times)
September 8, 2017 - To Sway Vote, Russia Used Army of Fake Americans (New York Times)

Now do the thought experiment. How useful and accurate was this reporting in 2017, given the facts revealed by the Mueller Report? Also, recognizing that half the electorate always assumed that there was the ordinary level of Russian (and Chinese, and Qatari, and British, and German, etc.) state interference in our elections and also believed that there was no collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign, how sound does that reporting from 2017 appear?

Half the population took the test and came up with the correct answer. Routine levels of interference, nothing out of the ordinary, no material effect, and no collusion.

Half the population took the test and came up with the wrong answer. But that half of the population included the mainstream media, Hollywood, Deep State bureaucrats, academia, and the Mandarin Class.

Who will be awarded top marks now for their correct answers?

The Pulitzer 2018 Award for National Reporting has the same tenuous relationship to accurate, responsible, and accountable journalism as did the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize had to the cultivation and maintenance of global Peace.