Reporting on NSA surveillance draws a Pulitzer
There were other worthy contenders for the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, but no reporting was more deserving than the revelations about the National Security Agency’s widespread secret surveillance program at home and abroad.
The Pulitzer committee awarded The Washington Post and the American office of The Guardian, a British newspaper, for publishing NSA documents and explaining its activities to a public that found its extensive snooping on the communications of ordinary Americans hard to fathom.
When Edward Snowden leaked thousands of classified documents last year detailing the spy agency’s mass surveillance, he was denounced as a traitor by many ... The Obama administration said it would arrest him at the first opportunity and charged him under the Espionage Act. Snowden, however, was given asylum in Russia.
The Post and The Guardian US deserved their Pulitzer for the difficult decisions they made on how to handle the sensitive material, balancing the government’s demand for secrecy and the public’s right to know. The Guardian even faced threats of a shutdown by British authorities, who claimed its revelations endangered national security.
By showing their readers the extent of NSA surveillance and sparking a debate about national security and personal privacy, the news agencies epitomized the best practices of modern journalism.
Americans are far more informed as a result.
— Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.