The Pulitzers, they ain’t

The Pulitzers, they ain’t
: Among best news sites, the Webby Awards nominate Al-Jazeera. It’s a joke, right? Internet irony. Right?

  • michael

    You don’t have to agree with the content of Al-Jazerra’s site for it to qualify for a Webbie. This isn’t an award in journalism, accuracy, patriotism, etc.

  • The fiction sub-category, perhaps?

  • Steel Magnolia

    …and in a related story, the Awards Committee announced that Jimmy Carter’s Nobel Prize was intended to send a message to our current Prez…

  • bob

    Michael’s right.
    Evaluation is based on six criteria:

    • Content
    • Structure and Navigation
    • Visual Design
    • Functionality
    • Interactivity
    • Overall Experience

    The accuracy of Al-Jazeera’s content is questionable, but the webby criteria page doesn’t include that measurement. Most of the criteria deal with aspects of design. For that, even a flat-out false page can be nominated.
    Personally, I’d like to see Al-Jazeera disqualified on moral grounds. But if every site had to meet my personal standrds, quite a few sites would be irrationally disqualified.
    I’ll cross my fingers and hope that they lose. But no complaints here.

  • Steve

    Well there content sucks, something I can only rate through inference from others as it is totally inaccessible to my browser when it tries to download some piece of, presumably, spyware each time I attempt access.
    And “news,” with all due respect, has always been synonomous with “journalism,” to me. The latter in turn has to do largely with truthful and accurate reporting of the “news.” Since the nominee under discussion, not to mention several others, such as the largely entertainment site, The Onion, fail to even approach these qualifications, The Webby merely becomes another hip, in tune with the times, popular member of the Internet wasteland.
    credibility = -0-

  • button

    The website keeps “skipping” or refreshing which is very annoying. There must be a technical reason for that, but I don’t know what it is. I think it should be disqualified on technical grounds for that reason.

  • …accurate reporting of the “news.” Since the nominee under discussion, not to mention several others, such as the largely entertainment site, The Onion, fail to even approach these qualifications
    Wait a sec- I believe The Onion is under the Humor category, not trying to pass itself off as a news website. Unless, last week, Rumsfeld really was looking forward to Secretaries Day.

  • Jonathan

    Let’s see:
    -There’s an “Activism” category replete with a nominated Indymedia site.
    -The “Politics” category includes lefty sites but no libertarian or conservative ones (except, like EFF, on ‘Net issues).
    Nice of those Webby folks to let us know where they stand. Is it a joke? No, they just have a funny way of trying to get us to take their posturing seriously.

  • Angus Jung

    I was more offended by the nomination of Modern Humorist in the Humor category. Besides the obvious problem, when was the last time those guys even updated the site? They’re too busy writing movie scripts and whacking each other off on VH1.

  • I have to agree with Jonathan. These nominees seem more than a tad skewed toward the staff’s POV. And iTunes getting three nominations makes no sense at all. ‘Business’, fine. ‘Music’, okay, but ‘Service’, too? Seems like overkill.

  • Howard Dean and Moveon were nominated in the Politics category, so I don’t see why Al Jazeera and its English affiliate, BBC, shouldn’t have been nominated in news.
    Webby’s are strictly “left side of the Web” awards anyhow.

  • CharlesWT

    Al-Jazeera’s home page is has a fifteen minute refresh cycle. Not bad compared to Drudge Report‘s over-the-top four minute cycle.

  • anon

    Al Jazeera is enormously valuable for showing us what Arabs see. Their perspective is reality for the Arab world. We need to know what they think is happening.
    They also can report from places American journalists would be shot on sight at.
    Americans who define good journalism as “stories we agree with” are not participating in reality.