Pulitzers honor coverage of Gaza and Sudan wars, Trump assassination attempt
The Pulitzers' prestigious public service medal went to ProPublica for the second straight year. Kavitha Surana, Lizzie Presser, Cassandra Jaramillo and Stacy Kranitz were honored for reporting on pregnant women who died after doctors delayed urgent care in states with strict abortion laws.
The Washington Post won for 'urgent and illuminating' breaking news coverage of the Trump assassination attempt. The Pulitzers honored Ann Telnaes, who quit the Post in January after the news outlet refused to run her editorial cartoon lampooning tech chiefs — including Post owner Jeff Bezos — cozying up to Trump. The Pulitzers praised her 'fearlessness.'
The Pulitzers honored the best in journalism from 2024 in 15 categories, along with eight arts categories including books, music and theater. The public service winner receives a gold medal. All other winners receive $15,000.
The New York Times showed its breadth with awards honoring reporting from Afghanistan, Sudan, Baltimore and Butler, Pennsylvania. Doug Mills won in breaking news photography for his pictures of the Trump assassination attempt, including one that captured a bullet in the air near the GOP candidate.
The Times' Azam Ahmed and Christina Goldbaum and contributing writer Matthieu Aikins won an explanatory reporting prize for examining U.S. policy failures in Afghanistan. Declan Walsh and the Times' staff won for an investigation into the Sudan conflict.
The Times was also part of a collaboration with The Baltimore Banner, whose reporters Alissa Zhu, Nick Thieme and Jessica Gallagher won in local reporting for stories on that city's fentanyl crisis and its disproportionate effect on Black men. The Banner was created three years ago, with several staffers who had left the Baltimore Sun.
'This is a huge milestone for us,' editor in chief Kimi Yoshino said in an interview. 'I told the newsroom today that never in my wildest dreams did I think we would be here at this moment. It is a testament to the power of local news, the need for local news and what journalists can do when they focus on important stories in our community.'
The Banner created a statistical model that it shared with journalists in cities like Boston, Chicago and San Francisco for stories there, she said.
Reuters won for its own investigative series on fentanyl, showing how lax regulation both inside and outside the United States makes the drug inexpensive and widely available. inewsource.org in San Diego was a finalist in the illustrated reporting and commentary category for its stories on fentanyl.
The New Yorker's Mosab Abu Toha won for his commentaries on Gaza. The magazine also won for its 'In the Dark' podcast about the killing of Iraqi civilians by the U.S. military and in feature photography for Moises Saman's pictures of the Sednaya prison in Syria.
The Wall Street Journal won a Pulitzer for its reporting on Elon Musk, 'including his turn to conservative politics, his use of legal and illegal drugs and his private conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin,' the Pulitzer board said. The Journal was also a finalist for its 'cool-headed' reporting on the plight of Evan Gershkovich, who was imprisoned in Russia.
The Pulitzers also gave a special citation to the late Chuck Stone for his work covering the civil rights movement. The pioneering journalist was the first Black columnist at the Philadelphia Daily News and founded the National Association of Black Journalists.
Mark Warren of Esquire won the feature writing prize for his portrait of a Baptist pastor and small-town mayor who died by suicide after his secret online life was exposed by a right-wing news site.
Alexandra Lange, a contributing writer for Bloomberg CityLab won an award in criticism for 'graceful and genre-expanding' writing about public spaces for families.
The Houston Chronicle Raj Mankad, Sharon Steinmann, Lisa Falkenberg and Leah Binkovitz won the Pulitzer in editorial writing for its series on dangerous train crossings.
The Associated Press was a finalist in breaking news reporting for its own coverage of the Trump assassination attempt, and in investigative reporting for its partnership with PBS FRONTLINE and the Howard Center for Investigative Journalism at the University of Maryland and at Arizona State University for stories documenting more than 1,000 deaths at the hands of police using methods of subduing people that were supposed to be non-lethal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Will AI Take Away Jobs, Permanently? Yes, 70% Americans Believe So
Will AI take away jobs? Yes, permanently. 71% of Americans say they are concerned that AI will be 'putting too many people out of work permanently'.(Unsplash) That's according to more than two out of three Americans who participated in a new survery by Reuters/Ipsos. The six-day poll, which concluded on Monday, showed 71% of respondents said they were concerned that Artificial Intelligence will be 'putting too many people out of work permanently'. Some 77% of respondents to the Reuters/Ipsos poll said that they worried the technology could be used to stir up political chaos, a sign of unease over the now-common use of AI technology to create realistic videos of imaginary events. US President Donald Trump last month posted on social media an AI-generated video of former Democratic President Barack Obama being arrested, an event that never happened. The new technology burst into the national conversation in late 2022 when OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot launched and became the fastest-growing application of all time. Big Tech heavyweights—including Facebook owner Meta Platforms Inc., Google owner Alphabet Inc. and Microsoft Inc.—soon joined the race offering their own AI products. While at present there are few signs of mass unemployment—the U.S. jobless rate was just 4.2% in July—AI is stirring concerns as it reshapes jobs, industries and day-to-day life. Americans are also leery about military applications for AI, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed. Some 48% of respondents said the government should never use AI to determine the target of a military strike, compared with 24% who said the government should allow that sort of use of the technology. Another 28% said they were not sure. The general enthusiasm for AI shown by many people and companies has fueled further investments, such as Foxconn and SoftBank's planned data center equipment factory in Ohio. It has also upended national security policies as the United States and China vie for AI dominance. More than half of Americans, some 61%, said they were concerned about the amount of electricity needed to power the fast-growing technology. Google said earlier this month it had signed agreements with two US electric utilities to reduce its AI data center power consumption during times of surging demand on the grid, as energy-intensive AI use outpaces power supplies. The new technology has also come under criticism for applications that have let AI bots hold romantic conversations with children, generate false medical information and help people make racist arguments. Two-thirds of respondents in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said they worried that people would ditch relationships with other people in favour of AI partners. People were split on whether AI technology will improve education. Some 36% of respondents thought it would help, while 40% disagreed and the rest were not sure. The Reuters/Ipsos survey gathered responses online from 4,446 U.S. adults nationwide and had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points.
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Facing Trump tariffs, India's shrimp farmers consider switching to other businesses
* Facing Trump tariffs, India's shrimp farmers consider switching to other businesses India is biggest supplier of shrimp to US; 50% tariff hits hard * Shrimp orders to US halted after tariff threat, exporters say * Farmers in India look for other ways to make money * Ecuador sees potential to expand in US if India's exports fall By Rishika Sadam and Yury Garcia HYDERABAD, India/GUAYAQUIL, Ecuador Aug 19 - O n India's southern coast, V. Srinivas thrived for two decades by farming shrimp, as the country became the top supplier of the delicacy to the United States. Now, Donald Trump's 50% tariff threat is forcing many to consider other ways of making money. Andhra Pradesh state sends the most shrimp from India to the U.S. and farmers there have spent millions of rupees over the years to cultivate high-quality shrimp in saline ponds. Now they are being hit hard as Indian exporters have slashed rates they offer farmers by almost 20% after the tariff shock, wiping out most of their profits. "I am contemplating if I should do fish farming," said the 46-year-old from Veeravasaram village who has already mortgaged his family property and has $45,800 in outstanding loans. "These prices will not help me get any profits and I will not be able to pay off my loan." The United States is the biggest market for India's shrimp farmers and exporters, with clients including U.S. supermarket chains such as Walmart and Kroger. Last year, total seafood exports from India globally stood at $7.4 billion, with shrimp accounting for 40%. But the industry is now in troubled waters with President Trump's 25% tariff on imports from India already in place - the highest among major economies, and another 25% levy to kick in from August 27 to penalize New Delhi for buying Russian oil. By comparison, Ecuador, India's main rival for shrimp exports to the U.S., faces a much lower 15% tariff, heightening its competitive edge. In Andhra, there are around 300,000 farmers engaged in shrimp farming, selling products to dozens of exporters who ship to America. Pawan Kumar, head of the Seafood Exporters Association of India, said orders from U.S. clients have been paused in recent weeks as buyers aren't willing to absorb the tariff, and neither can exporters, forcing the latter to cut prices they pay to farmers. Although India also sells shrimp to other countries such as China, Japan and the UK, and likely will look to expand sales there and diversify into new markets, "that's not going to happen overnight," Kumar said. The impact is yet another example of how Trump's tariff threats are causing business disruptions across the world, especially in India, given it faces one of the steepest levies that have soured its relations with Washington. In Andhra, six of 12 farmers Reuters interviewed said they were considering putting shrimp farming on hold and looking at fish farming, vegetable retailing or other local businesses to tide over the crisis. The other six are choosing to wait it out a bit. Each round of shrimp cultivation takes about 2 months or more. While prices being offered for their shrimp are being slashed, the farmers said they still face loan payments and high operating costs for electricity, raw material and feed, as well as high land rentals. "There's hardly a 20-25% profit for us on good days, and if that's getting eaten up, what else is left?," said Gopinath Duggineni, the chief of a local union in Ongole city, adding the farmers plan to seek financial support from the state government. Ecuador, meanwhile, is closely tracking tariffs on India to seize on business opportunities, but producers there will go slow on new investments amid uncertainty over whether India and the Trump administration could strike a tariff deal, said Jose Antonio Camposano, president of National Chamber of Aquaculture of Ecuador. "India's exports are highly concentrated in the United States ... just as China is for us. So that is where we could gain ground if India withdraws," he said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump Pushes for Peace Summit with U.S., Russia and Ukraine
WASHINGTON—President Trump on Monday urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin to meet face to face at a peace conference he would convene in a long shot bid to end the 3½-year-long war in Ukraine. The plan represents a bold and potentially risky maneuver by Trump to move toward settling the bloody war without achieving a cease-fire first and with Kyiv and Moscow still seemingly far apart on the terms of a final deal. Trump touted the idea for the peace conference during an Oval Office meeting with Zelensky and in talks with European leaders who joined the Ukrainian president at the White House on Monday. He said he would put the idea directly to Putin in a call, and paused his meeting with the leaders to do so, according to European officials. The White House didn't respond to a request for comment. A key issue for Kyiv and their European allies is whether the U.S. is willing to extend security commitments to Ukraine as part of a settlement. Trump said that the U.S. would be involved in a potential European effort to deploy peacekeepers, but didn't specify what the American role might be. The proposal for a three-way summit came three days after Trump failed to persuade Putin to back a cease-fire at a summit meeting in Alaska and shelved his vow to impose economic sanctions on Moscow, the latest zigzag by Trump in his quest to end the conflict. Only hours after insisting in a social-media post it was up to Zelensky to end the war, Trump praised the Ukrainian leader during remarks before their private meeting, a far different than their February Oval Office meeting when Trump and Vice President JD Vance excoriated Zelensky. 'This gentleman wants it to end, and Vladimir Putin wants it to end,' Trump said with Zelensky at his side. 'We're going to get it ended.' It was unclear what concrete proposals the White House might suggest to bridge the differences between Moscow and Kyiv if a three-way meeting is convened and what role the U.S. would play to help European nations secure the peace. As part of a discussion of possible territorial concessions, Trump and Zelensky reviewed a U.S.-prepared map of eastern Ukraine showing the percentage of Ukrainian territory held by Russia. Donetsk, which Russia wants Ukraine troops to leave under its negotiating proposal and contains some of Ukraine's most robust defenses, was shown as 76% held by Russian forces. Mark Rutte, the secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, said that the U.S. pledge to help a European peacekeeping effort was a 'breakthrough.' But Trump stopped sort of publicly promising to put U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine while vowing some form of American support to European nations that deploy a so-called 'reassurance force' there if a peace agreement is reached. What territory Ukraine might be asked to give up was unclear, along with whether Kyiv would be asked to accept the de facto partition of its territory or Russia's legal sovereignty over areas Moscow claims to have annexed. Ukraine's Constitution forbids trading land, Zelensky said in Brussels on Sunday, and such a matter could only be discussed in the talks between Russia, Ukraine and the U.S. Despite the harmony of Monday's meetings, Trump and some European leaders differ over the urgency of a cease-fire. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron proposed in their remarks that a halt in the fighting be put in place before the prospective three-way summit. The point of such a cease-fire would be to prevent Russia from playing for time and trying to gain more ground in Ukraine while the leaders talk. But Trump insisted no cease-fire was necessary to reach a deal, adding that it would be clear within one or two weeks—or perhaps sooner—whether the gambit will go forward. Zelenksy approved the idea, saying 'we are ready' for a trilateral meeting. But the Kremlin said earlier this month that Putin would only meet with Zelensky when 'the appropriate distance is overcome.' The Russian leader has long insisted that no settlement can be agreed without addressing what he calls the 'root causes' of the conflict, his shorthand for Ukraine's drift toward the West and NATO's role in central Europe. Zelensky is likely to face White House pressure to make concessions. After meeting with Putin, Trump wrote in a social media message that Zelensky would never regain Crimea, which Russia annexed after its initial invasion in 2014. On Friday, Trump urged Ukraine in a Fox News interview to compromise with Putin because 'Russia's a very big power, and they are not.' The day began with Zelensky's meeting with Trump and Vance in the Oval Office. Vance, unlike in their February encounter, didn't chime in when the press was present. Zelensky has worked hard to repair his relationship with the White House since then, and this time, the leaders appeared at pains to turn the page. Trump noted that Zelensky had traded his signature military attire for a black suit jacket and button-down shirt. Trump looked him up and down approvingly, shook his hand and both men grinned. 'We love them,' Trump said when asked for his message to the Ukrainian people. Zelensky thanked Trump and the U.S. eight times in his opening remarks, after being accused on his last White House visit of failing to sufficiently show appreciation for U.S. assistance. Trump, who on Friday labeled Zelensky, a 'dictator,' repeatedly addressed him Monday as 'president.' For many Ukrainians, Monday's meetings started off as an uphill struggle. Before his Alaska summit with Putin on Friday, Trump said there would be 'very severe consequences' if Putin didn't agree to end the war and vowed to press for a cease-fire. But Trump has put aside the talk of imposing tougher sanctions despite Russia's refusal to agree to a fighting moratorium Trump also must navigate some hazards as he pursues a peace deal. His political base is deeply suspicious of getting the U.S. involved in foreign conflicts, and he came to power with an isolationist message. Trump's former top adviser, Steve Bannon, offered a taste of where Trump's base might go. 'These DEMON EU LEADERS coming to the White House want us funding a forever war. Fighting to the last Ukrainian,' Bannon posted on X. 'Sending 60-year-olds as cannon fodder while their kids dodge the draft. And they still want our boys and girls? NO! MAGA WILL NOT CAVE!' Write to Michael R. Gordon at and Annie Linskey at
