PULITZER POLITICS

Most Pulitzer board meetings during my twenty-two years of service as administrator were models of decorous conduct. But for reasons I can't quite account for, the 1963 meeting was a lamentable exception.

We had barely taken our places around the familiar oblong table scattered with books and exhibits when I sensed tension growing around me as I introduced the first subject for decision.... The problem, as it developed, was whether to award the gold medal for public service -- the most coveted of the journalism awards -- to the Chicago Daily News for its long and largely successful effort to make birth control information available to families on the Chicago public relief rolls (who were presumed to need it most).

What happened thereafter was an all-day wrangle, which halted, temporarily, then resumed between votes on the various other prizes based on jury recommendations. As the board's secretary, I considered that the best thing to do was to vote the birth control gold medal up or down and get on with other business, a point of view Chairman Joseph Pulitzer, Jr. seemed to agree with. But when I called for a vote the first time, the result was a tie, 5-5, with other members abstaining. Allowing time for cooling off, votes on other prizes, and more birth control arguments, Iproposed another vote on the gold medal, which still resulted in a tie, this time 6-6. Toward the end of the day, when everybody was tired, the Chicago Daily News was at last voted the gold medal for public service. But the citation was weasel-worded, and I confess I did the weaseling, as follows:

"To the Chicago Daily News, for calling public attention to the issue of providing birth control services in the public health programs in its area."

Everybody around the table agreed to that, except Don Maxwell of the rival Chicago Tribune, who was still grumpy and voted "No" with a defiant flourish.

cjr  |  archive  |  resources  |  contact  |  search  |  subscribe