Who, what, where, when, why and — most importantly — how did The Seattle Times win a 2010 Pulitzer Prize for “Breaking News” for its coverage of the Lakewood police shootings and the Maurice Clemmons manhunt?
Those questions were asked — and well-answered — at the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce first Executive Speaker Series event, “Anatomy of a Pulitzer Prize” on Tuesday (June 22) at The Westin. (The Washington News Council was a "promotional partner" for the luncheon, along with the Public Relations Society of America and The Times.)
Lori Matsukawa, longtime KING-5 TV anchor, moderated the all-Times panel: Executive Editor David Boardman, and Managing Editors Suki Dardarian and Kathy Best, who oversaw the coverage. When Matsukawa asked Boardman why they won the Pulitzer, he replied: "First of all, I want to say this belongs to all of you. We want the whole community to share in this prize."
Indeed, this was an unprecedented example of a newspaper networking with citizens in what some call the new news ecosystem. No newspaper has ever made such extensive use of the web to cover a breaking news story. That's why this Pulitzer was so richly deserved.
Dardarian noted that the shootings happened on the Sunday morning after Thanksgiving, when only one reporter and one editor were in The Times' newsroom. "Within a few hours, the newsroom was full," she said. Before long, they were "on the front lines."
Boardman said The Times "got a four-to-five-hour jump on every other news organization" because reporter Jennifer Sullivan, working from her sickbed, identified Maurice Clemmons as the shooter through her sources. When The Times reported that, Dardarian said, she got a call from a police spokesman saying "we got it wrong … That got my adrenaline going." The Times checked again, and confirmed it was Clemmons. Later, the police confirmed on television that The Times was right, Dardarian said.
The Times created a “#washooting” hashtag on Twitter and the digital flood began. They invited citizens to contribute tips, photos and videos, using Google Wave and other online sources.
They did "cutting-edge use of all these new tools," Boardman said, using their "quick-twitch muscles." Boardman, who had not used Twitter much before, tweeted for 15 straight hours.
"The Seattle Times jumped into digital news with both feet," Matsukawa said, noting that many bloggers and dot-commers were "shocked" that The Seattle Times could become so "digitally nimble" in such a short time.
Matsukawa asked Best how they kept track of "thousands of pieces of information." Best said they used Dipity to organize videos, photos and text online. "We did a lot of innovating on the run."
Dardarian said they checked tips and rumors constantly. When a new report came in, people in the newsroom would ask: "How do you know that? Are you sure of that? We've always had those conversations, but to have them every 15-20 seconds was new."
The whole staff worked long hours. "In the old days, when the paper went to bed, you went to bed too," said Dardarian. "In this case, there was no going to bed."
Matsukawa asked if the police ever asked The Times to pull back because they might be interfering with the manhunt for Clemmons. Only when a Times photographer who was on a balcony across the street from the house where Clemmons was thought to be hiding, Dardarian said. The Seattle Police Department asked The Times to “slow down his tweets” while he was covering the stakeout. (It later turned out that Clemmons had a Twitter account, but he wasn't logged on during the hunt, Boardman said.)
Matsukawa asked if “citizen journalists” had helped or hurt the profession.
Boardman: “The whole notion of citizen journalists is something that we struggle with…. Many people in the public expect a far greater degree of interactivity” with the newspaper than ever before. But he still believes “it is a profession,” with basic standards, ethics and tools that need to be learned. He worries that some citizen journalists don’t have adequate training.
But Best noted: “Yes, but with Google Wave we were able to expand the scope of our coverage."
Dardarian added: “Folks in the community were able to see holes in our coverage and correct it.
Boardman recounted how, after the manhunt ended and Clemmons was dead, The Times published a memorial page to the fallen officers. King County Sheriff Sue Rahr called him to thank The Times for its coverage, noting that “the community just embraced them, and wanted to wrap their arms around them."
Dardarian added: “I was touched. This was a moment of bonding” with the police.
Contrast that with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's negative and deeply flawed multi-part series on the King County Sheriff’s Office in 2006, which led to a complaint by Rahr to the Washington News Council. The P-I series was clearly an effort to win a Pulitzer or other journalism prizes, but it was inaccurate, sensationalized, and overblown. Rahr's complaint was largely upheld by the News Council after a three-hour public hearing on Oct. 21, 2006.
Boardman noted: The press's relationship with the police is always a very touchy and complicated relationship," but this was an opportunity to honor them."
The Times’ coverage helped honor the police, and the Pulitzer Prize justifiably honors The Times.
This article is adapted from a slightly different version on the Washington News Council blog.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Print
Email





Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, Jun 25, 9:23 a.m. Inappropriate
Hamer, a supposed media critic and fact-checker, is a tad disingenuous: The Times did a great job on the Lakewood shootings and they ought to be blowing their horn.
But as a co-sponsor of this event with the Times, Hamer is invested and shows it by taking a cheap shot at another story, by the rival P-I, four years back, portions of which his News Council one-sidedly decided were "inaccurate, sensationalized, and overblown," as he puts it, done only to win a Pulitzer.
You can argue the same about portions of the Times' cop story as well - they made some mistakes and took some criticism even though it was, in sharp contrast to the P-I story, understandably sympathetic to police. The P-I's was an investigative battle; the Times was reacting to news. Different animals.
The Times is likewise a newspaper that has won a number of Pulitzers by clearly setting out to do so with its zone-flooding coverage. Of course, this Hamer knows, having worked there. You have to wonder if he might have been a P-I cheerleader had he worked there - and partnered in their promotional events.
Posted Fri, Jun 25, 11:26 a.m. Inappropriate
No disrespect to the Times, but I'd venture to say it won because The News Tribune's powers that be failed to submit its own coverage.
Posted Fri, Jun 25, 12:25 p.m. Inappropriate
How sadly self-promotional (not to mention tainted) this bit of "journalism" is. Yes, bravo to the Times' for its work on Lakewood shootings, but the irrelevant pot shot taken by Hamer at the P-I's courageous investigation of the sheriff's office speaks volumes about his own need to be validated.
The news council and its dog-and-pony show on the sheriff's complaint was an obvious farce by political supporters of Rahr and opponents of the P-I (including the Times, whose publisher who has admitted helping to "advise" the sheriff on her complaint). Harvard's Neiman Foundation got it right when it called B.S. on the news council's whole sad involvement (see the link below). I'm sure it brought in lots of donations and easy PR from Rahr and her political allies for an organization seeking relevancy and funding to survive (and hence, saved Hamer's from finding a new job and salary for a few more years). But if anyone thinks this was in any way a noble effort to raise the quality and integrity of journalism, I've got a bridge for sale that you should really take a look at.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid;=00132&fontsize;=down.
Posted Tue, Jun 29, 5:21 p.m. Inappropriate
Blackie, debbalee and Jo_K -- thanks for your comments. A few thoughts for you each to consider:
Blackie -- Yes, the Washington News Council was a "promotional partner" of this event, but we were not "invested" in it financially as a "co-sponsor." We paid for one lunch ticket, that's all. The paragraph in my blog about the P-I, which you call a "cheap shot," followed logically from David Boardman's noting that Sheriff Sue Rahr and other local law-enforcement people praised The Times for its coverage and sympathy toward the police. That was definitely in contrast to the P-I's 2006 series that attacked the King County Sheriff's office and painted it with a broad brush of corruption and incompetence. Granted, there was some good reporting in the series, but I stand by the words "inaccurate, sensationalized and overblown." The News Council agreed in virtually unanimous votes on all the key questions, at a 3-hour hearing, available on DVD if you'd like to watch it. No fair-minded person could conclude it was anything less than thorough, professional and even-handed. The P-I boycotted the hearing, being unwilling to "stand by their story" in public. Our WNC chair, Judge Karen Seinfeld, ready lengthy excerpts from the P-I's written rebuttal into the record at the hearing. You're right that The Times' stories were (mostly) breaking news, while the P-I did an investigative series (100-plus stories in a year). But investigative pieces driven by the lust for journalism prizes are part of what's wrong with journalism today. The News Council in its 12 years has had several cases where that was clearly the motive for some local reporters/editors. Honest journalists have begun to admit this. As for your hypothetical about my being a cheerleader for the P-I: Not likely. They never would have hired me.
debbalee -- I didn't read much of The News Tribune's coverage. But I think they've done lots of good work in the past. And I submit the P-I series never would have run in the TNT as it appeared in the P-I. You think?
Jo_K -- Self-promotional? Hey, I've been running a small non-profit for 12 years. Of course we have to promote ourselves -- like every other organization and individual in the world. But we also have helped dozens of people who have been the victims of unfair, inaccurate and unethical stories about them or their organizations in the news media -- Sheriff Sue Rahr being a prime example. I had never met her when she came to the News Council with her potential complaint. She said she called The Times' publisher, Frank Blethen, for his advice, and he told her to call the News Council. That surprised me, because The Times had previously been skeptical of the WNC. Your statement that Harvard's Neiman Foundation "called B.S." on the News Council is inaccurate. That was a column by Jane Kirtley, a longtime news council critic from Minnesota, on the Neiman website, and not the view of the Foundation. I had lunch with Jane in Minneapolis a few years ago. She believes that public officials should not have the right to file complaints with news councils (there's a good one in Minnesota) against the media. That's her opinion, but it is not shared by other prominent national supporters of news councils such as Geneva Overholser, Bill Moyers, Jim Lehrer, Mike Wallace, Al Neuharth and many others. Tell you what: If you watch the DVD of the hearing and still think it was a "dog-and-pony" show and an "obvious farce," I'll buy you a beer. Lots of donations? Well, not so much. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave us a challenge grant -- but that came four years after the Rahr vs. P-I hearing. As for raising the quality and integrity of journalism, well, what else is working to do that these days? A news council is no panacea, as I've often said, but it can help by holding journalists publicly accountable for their performance and ethics -- just as they do to everyone else. It's a two-way street, in my view. But I could be simply naive and flat wrong. If so, where's that bridge? I might be interested...
Posted Thu, Jul 1, 12:26 a.m. Inappropriate
Looks like someone else is calling B.S. on Hamer, too.
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/06/washington_news_councils_john.php
Posted Thu, Jul 1, 7:51 a.m. Inappropriate
wow, the above article as well as the comments left in this thread by john hamer for me reveal some big problems with the conclusions he jumped to.
for one, while he's quick to blast the seattle post-intelligencer for its "inaccurate, sensational and overblown" reporting, as he puts it, he accepts face value from what the Seattle Times editors said at their luncheon for his washington news council that their series was accurate. I followed the Twitter feed of the shooting, that he cites in the article, and it was loaded with inaccurate and false information about the Lakewood shooting event (Don't take my word for it, go back and check out the #washooting hashtag for yourself, which hamer obviously did not). I wonder if the Pulitzer Prize board heard about these inaccuracies in the Times' prize submission?
also, if you don't think the times wasn't trying from day one to win the pulitzer for its shooting coverage, you're being disingenuous. why else would they throw 20-plus reporters onto the story, send a reporter to Oklahoma, etc., during lean newspaper budget years? i think everyone in fairview fannie would be reluctant to argue that case.
and since the whole prize issue was raised, i did go back and check the p-i's coverage on the sheriff's issue, and the more than 100 stories in a year that hamer cites in his comment above isn't accurate. it appears that a couple of dozen of those were editorials or op-ed pieces, or stories about the sheriff's office unrelated to the series. and, these stories didn't occur in one calendar year, they were published over the course of a year's time but in different years (2005 and 2006). that pretty much blows hamer's entire this-series-was-driven-to-win-a-pulitzer-prize theory out of the water, because the pulitizers are doled out annually to journalism for coverage within a single calendar year.
also, hamer doesn't make any mention here of the deep conflicts of interest between himself and several other members of the news council with the sheriff's office (read the seattle weekly link posted by Jo-k above). it appears if the p.i. had good reason not to attend the hearing.
something else: i did see the final "vote" on tvw by the news council on the p-i's hearing and it raised a bunch of issues for me. one was that the supposed "media people" on the panel were hardly that at all. i don't believe there was on actual working journalist. there were a bunch of spokesperson-types and "former journalists" who hadn't been in the business for years. i don't think there was a single "investigative journalist," which is the kind of reporting this series was based on.
the other thing was that the council only looked at a handful of stories from the series and didn't examine it comprehensively, yet in the end labeled the whole thing as "biased." but i think what did it for me was that in the speeches that a couple of these council members gave before voting, it was clear their decision making was made for reasons other than journalism. one guy even made it a point to say something about how the p-i not being at the hearing obviously meant they were "biased." Go figure. another council member ridiculously reasoned that becasue the p.i. quoted people who had been arrested, that the reporting obviously wasn't credible. as if someone who's ever been arrested can therefore never be truthful. yikes. (the entire series was about police misconduct by the sheriff's office, including some incidents of false arrest.)
Posted Thu, Jul 1, 9:16 a.m. Inappropriate
Gee, it's nice to see so many comments on this thread. Such robust discussion about media performance and ethics is exactly what the Washington News Council has been encouraging for 12 years now. In addition to our hearings, all broadcast on TVW, we've held lots of panels and forums for public debate on media issues. Now it can be done online, which is great -- with one big difference: You commenters don't have to identify yourselves. You can cast aspersions and ascribe motives anonymously. Feels pretty good, huh? Yes, I know that's the trend, but do any of you have the courage to post your real names? If not, it's hard to know what your connections and motives might be. Hey, call me on the phone if you want and let's talk in person! (WNC office: 206.262.9793) I can address all of your concerns and prove you wrong (especially you, "CasperJ"), or at least we can agree to disagree. I'll even buy you a beer if you don't think that would be an untenable conflict of interest. If so, you can buy me one. In short, I'm willing to be Transparent, Accountable and Open about who I am and how we operate. How about you? Want a "TAO of Journalism" T-Shirt? Take the "TAO Pledge" at http://www.taoofjournalism.org and display the seal. I'm going to make the same offer to the Seattle Weekly blogger who at least had the courage to write under his own name -- although he never called me to ask for my side of the story. Fair and ethical? You tell me. Be sure to reference the Society of Professional Journalists' Ethics Code at www.spj.org. If all journalists actually followed it -- particularly the "Be Accountable" section -- there wouldn't be any need for news councils. But they don't, and there is.