Standards and Practices

A few weekends ago on the Chris Matthews Show, panelist Cynthia Tucker made such a shocking statement, I thought my neck would snap as I jerked my head from the kitchen to the living room to look at the television.

As part of the usual routine, I was making some early morning coffee while the Sunday morning commentary shows blared in the background. While I tend to disagree with a lot of the opinions put forth, I have a deep respect for those who can back up their arguments with sound reason and judgement. In my world, this passes for entertainment.

In this case, the commentators were engaged in the neverending discussion of Presidential candidates. Because I'm apathetic to a "campaign season" that lasts two years, the discussion sounded like this, "Blahblahblahblahblah." My brain interpreted it as white noise during that segment.

Until Cynthia Tucker, editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution's Opinion section. She remarked that John McCain is unique to the Republican side.....because of his strong Libertarian tendencies.

Oh. My. God.

As someone who has logged several years on the Hill, I have had the chance to work with and alongside pretty much every Member of note. John McCain has never, once, demonstrated the "small government" and "personal freedom" ideals of a Libertarian. Not once. In fact, John McCain's tendencies toward spending sprees made me frequently question how he could even call himself a Republican.

My time on the Hill has led me to equally disdain political parties, particularly the two biggies. There are very few Members who are able to spend any amount of time on the Hill and not get swept into the undercurrent of greed and power that is palpable in the hallways. Those who do have my undying respect.

But this isn't meant to be a political diatribe.

The reason Cynthia Tucker's comment still sticks in my mind these weeks later is because the following week, Chris Matthews announced that Cynthia Tucker would not be on the show. I actually held my breath for a moment, thinking that her completely ignorant John McCain comment had gotten her banished into the abyss.

But no. Cynthia Tucker couldn't make the show because she was celebrating winning the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.

Wh...wh...Wha.....WHAT?!?!?

To be fair, Tucker's prize was awarded based on her submission of ten hand-picked articles that were a part of her Pulitzer bid. But this causes me to ask, shouldn't her body of work be considered in a larger context?

I mean, the Pulitzer is a prize of unparalleled weight. I'm disappointed that there is not more of an organic process in choosing to laud honorees. Frankly, I'll never be able to read one of Tucker's articles without the shadow of her completely idiotic "McCain is more Libertarian than Republican" comment hovering over the words. The comment is so factually flawed at its core, she has lost all credibility.

It just feels odd that a writer can cherry-pick ten articles of their choosing, collect some glowing recommendations from their publisher, and package that into a submission for one of the most prestigious awards on the planet.

I'm sure that Tucker's submission articles were well-written. But considering that Tucker has been penning articles for some twenty years, it represents the smallest fraction of her overall body of work. I would think that members of the Pulitzer Prize Board would spot-read other published pieces.