Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Give The Onion a Pulitzer Campaign Gaining Steam

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the world's-best-newspaper-demands-ironic-credit-it-deserves dept.

The Media 110

Long before Stewart or Colbert were on TV you could count on The Onion to bring you your daily dose of fake or funny news. After the recent publication of their 1000th issue, a small but growing movement has started pushing for the Pulitzer Prize to be awarded to the satirical site. The Americans for Fairness in Awarding Journalism Prizes website encourages readers to submit videos on why they think The Onion deserves the honor. The movement has grown so large that you can find videos from Tom Hanks and Arianna Huffington among the user submissions.

cancel ×

110 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Onion Pulitzer in my pants (1)

slashpot (11017) | more than 2 years ago | (#36514310)

I have an Onion Pulitzer in my pants.

Re:Onion Pulitzer in my pants (2)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515138)

I have an Onion Pulitzer in my pants.

Don't you have therapy you're supposed to be going to, Mr. Congressman?

Re:Onion Pulitzer in my pants (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515178)

How can the Onion survive now that the real news is reporting the special election to fill Wiener's seat?

(and how are Japanese newscasts reporting it? rawr)

Re:Onion Pulitzer in my pants (0)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515520)

Meh, that's just a distraction from the more interesting issues that are about. Such as why Goldman can get a billion dollar bailout after helping to sink the economy, or why we can't have decent healthcare in this country. For every sensationalistic news piece you see on tv, assume the real news is elsewhere.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515114)

The Onion is great but no.

Re:No (5, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515230)

Don't forget that there are Pulitzer Prizes available in many categories. Should they win an award for reporting breaking news? Of course not. But they could be deserving of a prize in the Commentary, Criticism, or Editorial writing categories. And of course, there's always the fiction category.

Re:No (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515736)

I would think that the Onion's best chance would be the "Feature Writing" category, actually.

Re:No (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515748)

Don't forget that there are Pulitzer Prizes available in many categories. Should they win an award for reporting breaking news? Of course not. But they could be deserving of a prize in the Commentary, Criticism, or Editorial writing categories. And of course, there's always the fiction category.

Perhaps they can get one for being Most Onionesque

i'd vote for that

Re:No (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#36518266)

Perhaps they can get one for being Most Onionesque

i'd vote for that

The scary thing is, they'd face a lot of competition from the mainstream press.

Re:No (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516140)

Kelly consistently puts out the highest-quality political cartoons out there. In a field comprised of over-the-top garbage, Kelly manages to make his points while mocking the format that he himself is using. He deserves the Political Cartooning Pulitzer without having to redefine it, or invent a new category.

Re:No (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516490)

Ward Sutton [wikipedia.org] definitely deserves one. Not necessarily for his "Kelly" Onion comics, though, he's done a lot [suttonimpactstudio.com] of amazing [comicsbeat.com] work [suttonimpactstudio.com] ...

Why Not? (1, Insightful)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515150)

The Onion is just about as believable as mainstream media most of the time. Probably closer to reality most of the time.

Re:Why Not? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515184)

no

Re:Why Not? (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515192)

I was going to say credible, but same post otherwise.

Re:Why Not? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516284)

That's a bit of an overstatement at best there, or maybe comparing apples to oranges. Real news sources make the claim that what they're saying is accurate. The Onion explicitly states that what they're saying is not true. You may remember some particularly insightful parodies they ran, but would forget the ones that weren't as spot-on. With news on the other hand, you're more likely to remember when the news wasn't accurate.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. The onion is very funny, and does make many important observations on the world, but they have no credibility as a news source since they never say "This is the news, this is actually happening." They have never made any -false- statements about the current events, but they haven't made any true statements about current events either. If they have any credibility as a news source for that, my 4 month old niece has even -more- credibility. She absolutely has not said anything that could be proven wrong and by that scoring system has 100% reliability.

Re:Why Not? (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 2 years ago | (#36520064)

they have no credibility as a news source since they never say "This is the news, this is actually happening." They have never made any -false- statements about the current events, but they haven't made any true statements about current events either. If they have any credibility as a news source for that,

They have credibility because they at least admit they're making stuff up. It's like art, they reveal a larger truth by showing falsehoods. That's why they have credibility. Other news organisations just make stuff up and pretend it's some how newsworthy.

Re:Why Not? (1)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515366)

If they get it then Dilbert, XKCD, FunnyOrDie, Failblog.. should receive one also. Some great journalism there.. /s

Re:Why Not? (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516060)

If they get it then Dilbert, XKCD, FunnyOrDie, Failblog.. should receive one also. Some great journalism there.. /s

I don't think those are quite the same thing as The Onion. They are mostly just humor for humor's sake, or satirizing specific subcultures (office life, geeks, internet). The Onion has a lot of political satire, which is more relevant on the stage of national journalism. It that material on which they would be judged, not the comics about dismembered zombies and middle-school-cyber-bully-style movie reviews.

Re:Why Not? (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516578)

Scott Adams has already won plenty of awards. Dilbert is a comic strip, though, not an editorial cartoon.

As for the others - they are great humor/satire websites, but they aren't newspapers. Yes, the Onion is also a print newspaper, and has been for over 20 years...

Re:Why Not? (2)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515918)

But only to morons. Every week some Obama onion article makes the rounds on Facebook with conservatives screaming "ZOMG OBAMA IS BUILDING AN ABORTIONPLEX!!" [imgur.com]

The Onion is almost as cynical and hysterically funny as Fox News. Almost.

Re:Why Not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515998)

It's certainly more insightful.

Re:Why Not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36516174)

Just about as credible as Obama getting a Noble Peace prize (while continuing the war in Iraq, escalating the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen and opening a new war front in Libya)

Re:Why Not? (2)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 2 years ago | (#36517344)

Just to be pedantic, Obama won a Nobel prize. They named it after a guy [wikipedia.org] . He didn't get the prize for being particularly noble.

Also, they gave the prize to a terrorist [wikipedia.org] one time.

Bias (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515218)

Their only bias is attempting to be funny. They make fun of both sides equally. They may be the only major American news source that doesn't lean left or right. Isn't that worth a Pulitzer?

Re:Bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515344)

No, they're like Monty Python. You have to sit through 99% shit before seeing a gem.

Re:Bias (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515476)

Actually the best thing about the Onion is that you don't have to sit through shit, because 99% of the time, 100% of the humor is in the headline itself.

You only read the rest of the article if you want to see the joke in the headline get beaten to death. Oh and 1% of the time they actually expand on the humor and its worth reading.

Re:Bias (1)

SpongeBob Hitler (1848328) | more than 2 years ago | (#36519302)

No, they're like Monty Python. You have to sit through 99% shit before seeing a gem.

An unbeliever! Persecute! Kill the heretic! Kill the heretic!

Re:Bias (1)

Skywolfblue (1944674) | more than 2 years ago | (#36518526)

/Agree It's so rare to find political satire/humor that isn't partisan these days. The Onion is brilliant work.

Precognition? (4, Interesting)

black soap (2201626) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515246)

Some of their articles have come true - such as when they announced airlines would begin charging for 1st checked bags, it happened shortly after.

If anything, The Onion has made people more aware of the news simply by mocking it. Compared to the press-release journalism most news outlets use, it is actually quite the writing accomplishment.

Re:Precognition? (4, Insightful)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515348)

My favorite Onion prognostication was "Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Blades" [theonion.com] .

Re:Precognition? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515490)

One of their most accurate predictions was surely this one: Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over [theonion.com] .

Re:Precognition? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515876)

Baby boomers lived high on the prosperity created by their parents, and then rather than working to keep it up they just put it on the credit card and left their children with the bill.

Thanks for nothing you entire generation of selfish gits.

Re:Precognition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36519408)

Baby boomers lived high on the prosperity created by their parents, and then rather than working to keep it up they just put it on the credit card and left their children with the bill.

Thanks for nothing you entire generation of selfish gits.

Even worse than that. They got (or will get) their inheritance from their parents, and then they go and get a reverse mortgage so they max out their comfort before they take a dirt nap. Nope, can't let their children who were forced to be latch-key kids inherit anything! The sooner the baby boomer generation dies off, the better off this country will be. Hell, most of them still act like a bunch of teenagers anyway.

Re:Precognition? (1)

vawwyakr (1992390) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516804)

Wow that is eerie...I had to look at the date like five times.

Re:Precognition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36519214)

That's incredible, the article literally spells out everything Bush did before he did it.

Re:Precognition? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515606)

Also good is this piece: Mitt Romney Haunted By Past Of Trying To Help Uninsured Sick People [theonion.com] which was followed within weeks by an article in the New Yorker about the difficulty of Romney having to explain Massachusetts' universal health care that he signed into law.

Re:Precognition? (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515630)

And that's just an extrapolation from the very first [wikipedia.org] Saturday Night Live, where they ran a fake commercial for "Triple Trac: because you'll believe anything".

Re:Precognition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36518772)

Reading that I heard Cave Johnson's voice.
"Don't make lemonade!"

Re:Precognition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36519522)

That piece alone deserves a Pulitzer.

Re:Precognition? (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515516)

They've put up a couple of fairly good articles (here [theonion.com] and here [theonion.com] ) about this whole Pulitzer thing, too. I suppose we'll need to wait and see how astute those were.

Re:Precognition? (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515558)

They also foretold, that Bush will start a war, and the recession.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros,464/ [theonion.com]

And don't forget about the Sony screwup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AyVh1_vWYQ [youtube.com]

Re:Precognition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515816)

Then go, and give X-files one too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIZ205ccX8M [youtube.com]

Re:Precognition? (1)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516010)

Sorry, but the Onion is to John Stewart as the Arctic to Antarctica. They are similar, but actually not the same thing at all, other than being cold.

The Onion IMO is stupid news. John Stewart is a cynical view of the hypocritical behavior of the politicians. They are not the same thing whatsoever!

Re:Precognition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36518240)

Seconded. The Onion is more like Fox News if Sarah Palin worked for them... minus the evil

Re:Precognition? (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#36519178)

Will the Area Man accept the award for them?

Prizes for everyone (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515256)

If Obama can get a nobel peace prize for doing absolutely nothing then surely the onion can get a Pullitzer.

Re:Prizes for everyone (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515392)

Don't forget about Al Gore's prize for fear mongering

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515442)

Don't forget about Al Gore's prize for telling the truth even though it was politically incorrect

Fixed that for you.

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515524)

Nevermind that scientists ripped it for being terrible science. But if it pushes the agenda you want to hear, so be it.

Either way, creating a movie about environmental awareness while flying everywhere on a private jet apparently gets you a prize dedicated to Peace.

Re:Prizes for everyone (2, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516038)

Nevermind that scientists ripped it for being terrible science. But if it pushes the agenda you want to hear, so be it.

I hear scientists also ripped apart evolution and the link between smoking and cancer too. My own research has been subjected to withering criticism from time to time as well, you might call that "ripping it apart."

You -could- conclude that diverse interpretations exist on all data, the truth is often hard to identify, most scientific issues are complicated with plenty of room for disagreement. Maybe one should conclude that scientists say a lot of things, but that doesn't make it true. Sometimes one or a few scientists may be right and the rest wrong, sometimes not.

Wait, what the hell am I saying? It's far better and easier to insist that if a scientist said it, it must be true, even if other scientists say otherwise. Global warming isn't happening, and my research is right no matter what my committee or reviewers say! There's just a massive conspiracy among evil scientists to get rid of our beloved SUVs, our dangerous coal power, our delicious cigarettes, convince us we're apes, and deny me my PhD!

Either way, creating a movie about environmental awareness while flying everywhere on a private jet apparently gets you a prize dedicated to Peace.

Wait wait wait wait wait... you're telling me that a POLITICIAN... is... is.. is a HYPOCRITE?!?!?

[falls dead of shock]

Well, that clearly proves that whatever he was arguing for was false. What's an "ad-homenim argument"? Doesn't matter I guess.

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516660)

My best friend is a Liberal Democrat and exceedingly pro-environment. He is also the only guy I know that I would call an actual genius without reservation. He is finishing his doctorate in atmosphere science. So when he rips the terrible science the movie, I trust him. And he isn't the only one.

Take two seconds and Google up "Inconvenient Truth rebuttal" or "Inconvenient Truth lies" and note how many scientists and universities are ripping that movie.

Here is a good rebuttal.

http://www.ecoworld.com/animals/birds/rebuttal-to-al-gores-inconvenient-truth-one-sided-misleading-exaggerated-speculative-wrong.html [ecoworld.com]

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#36517250)

Just to reiterate, Al Gore is not the theory of climate change. His faults and shortcomings are completely separate from climate change, and proving him wrong, a hypocrite, or misleading does not reflect on the science behind climate change. Lets just keep that straight that the two are completely separate.

The article you cited seems to take the movie as a scientific publication rather than a movie designed to raise awareness among the public. That was the goal, not to prove that global warming was happening. As it was, critics complained that the movie was too boring, and the movie went straight over the heads of most people who will be affected by climate change. Giving the level of detail that Marlo Lewis demands would put everyone to sleep and would be quite counterproductive. It would be nice if Al Gore had been able to address every concern in a 2 hour movie and not confuse the hell out of everyone, but if he were capable of that, he probably would have been able to win the electoral vote as well.

Since your only complaint seems to be about the movie, not anything about the actual theory of climate change, is it safe to assume you're undecided or are convinced global climate change is happening? If so, why bother attacking the movie?

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#36518774)

My concern is the movie, and not climate change itself.

I'm undecided on how much we impact climate change. We know there are cycles of climate change. And we know we are polluting like mad. Do I feel confident that we understand the full extent of human impact on the climate? Certainly not, especially given how complicated atmospheric science is, and how little we know.

For instance, it has been proposed that global temperature changes in recent recorded history more cleanly correlate to solar activity than to carbon levels, and that ice core samples often show temperatures historically trended down as carbon rose. Yet as a society we've fixed that carbon footprint is the sole deciding factor in climate change.

I believe we should be socially responsible in how we use the resources on Earth, and the pollution we release. However, we also have a responsibility to espouse good science. It is irresponsible to tell people that we know Hurricane Katrina was caused by SUVs.

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 2 years ago | (#36520086)

Just to reiterate: the fucking topic was Al Gore getting a prize for sensationalism. Your over-the-top emtional response to anyone even hinting at disagreement with your religion is telling.

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515678)

As for political correctness, Gore and Clinton promised while campaigning for the White House, they'd make the environment a big issue. They promised Clean Water and Clean Air acts. Eight years in the White House, it never happened.

Bush took office, and within 100 days passed Clean Air and Clean Water acts. He passed penalties on auto manufacturers that didn't have hybrids. He passed a tax break for hybrid owners. He passed a new solar energy tax credit. And he passed a law demanding that utilities credit and buy back energy from people who produce their own. He also pushed federal funding into fuel cell research. He also passed a penalty of auto manufacturers based on fuel economy, and called for even stronger standards (Obama actually endorsed Bush on these tough standards before a Democratic Congress passed a much weaker version that doesn't kick in for 14 years). All the while, the spin was that Bush hated the environment and was all pro-oil, despite publicly stating he wanted the United States to get rid of their oil dependency.

All the while it was pushed as a partisan issue. It was VERY politically correct to bring up the environment, so long as you were doing it as a means to rip the other party. In reality, both parties have been irresponsible on environmental issues over the years at times, and passed good legislation for the environment at times over the years.

But I've never known it to be politically incorrect to say that you support the environment. Who doesn't claim to support the environment?

Gore gets all the credit in the world for bringing up an issue that has been widely discussed for the entirety of my lifetime, even though Gore is one of the most visible hypocrites on the issue and his science is terrible.

Calling Gore out however is politically incorrect, because it makes you appear to hate the environment.

Re:Prizes for everyone (2)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516084)

despite publicly stating he wanted the United States to get rid of their oil dependency.

... just like every U.S. president in, what, the last 50 years? Certainly every one in my lifetime.

Saying you want the US to get rid of our oil dependency is like saying you support the troops or think America is great: it's shit every politician says, so you should pretty much just disregard it.

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516734)

I agree with you. My point isn't that one party is correct, but rather that I think both parties are for the most part saying the same things. And that the environment isn't as much of a partisan issue that it is made out to be.

Claiming that Gore was exceedingly brave in tackling a politically incorrect issue is absurd. Anytime you claim to champion the environment, it is a politically positive message.

Politically incorrect is questioning anyone who claims to champion the environment.

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515726)

If Obama can get a nobel peace prize for doing absolutely nothing...

That's extremely unfair. He got it for not being the warmongering fuck that George Bush was. Or simply not being George Bush, if you prefer.

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515834)

If Obama can get a nobel peace prize for doing absolutely nothing...

That's extremely unfair. He got it for not being the warmongering fuck that George Bush was. Or simply not being George Bush, if you prefer.

Ever heard of Libya? Congress approved of Bush's actions. Obama is a standalone warmonger.

It sucks when the truth gets in the way of your rant.

Re:Prizes for everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515966)

It sucks when what Rush says gets in the way of your rant.

FTFY.

Re:Prizes for everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36517064)

Please cite where Congress approved of the action in Libya.

Re:Prizes for everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36517276)

He doesn't need it. It also doesn't excuse Mr. Bush's actions. Gonna use the term 'drive-by-media' now?

Re:Prizes for everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36517804)

How does it feel to have your head so far up your ass you can kiss your kidneys?

Re:Prizes for everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36519270)

Lemme listen to Fox News for a bit, then I'll be able to tell you. ;)

Re:Prizes for everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515882)

The way Bush went to war without consulting Congress?

Sorry, I forgot. War criminals are OK if they have a "D" after their name.

Re:Prizes for everyone (0)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515890)

If Obama can get a nobel peace prize for doing absolutely nothing...

That's extremely unfair. He got it for not being the warmongering fuck that George Bush was. Or simply not being George Bush, if you prefer.

How is that working out for ya? How many fewer wars is Obama waging than George Bush did? Oh that's right, he has continued both of Bush's wars and started another one. And unlike Bush, he did not bother to get Congress to approve his new war.

Re:Prizes for everyone (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516290)

To be fair to Obama, that means he's started half as many wars as Bush...

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516476)

Give him time, he hasn't even been in office three years yet.

Re:Prizes for everyone (4, Informative)

black soap (2201626) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516494)

And if he ends any, he'll outscore Bush in that category, too.

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 2 years ago | (#36521830)

Well, you've convinced me. I'm definitely not voting for Bush in 2012, like I almost did in 2008.

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#36517844)

He's started no wars, he's started a "kinetic military action". Similarly, George W Bush and Dick Cheney didn't lock up prisoners and tortured them, they "detained" "enemy combatants" and subjected them to "enhanced interrogation techniques".

When a politician (or businessperson, or anyone else who has a job that involves communicating with the public) takes a concept that has a perfectly good, short, clear word to describe it, and gives it a long convoluted phrase to mean the same thing, assume they're trying to hide something.

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 2 years ago | (#36519392)

On the other hand, he already murdered more people in other countries than Bush did in his two terms.

Re:Prizes for everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36516012)

He got it for the color of his skin.

Re:Prizes for everyone (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#36517202)

That nobel prize wasn't for doing absolutely nothing. It was granted to Obama for him not being Bush.

If he did in fact do absolutely nothing, I'd support the Nobel comitee. That would be quite an acomplishment.

awful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515420)

the onion is just a bunch of obvious comments on the news, in a completely unfunny format. The only people that find the onion funny are people just informed enough to get the references, but too stupid to realize how bland and unfunny it is. It makes them feel smart for getting the jokes.

Re:awful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36516042)

Thahnk Gawd you're much more sophisticated than that.

Re:awful (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36516242)

I too am glad that GP is insightful enough to see through The Onion's bland and predictable humor. Were it not for him, I too would be trapped among the uninformed masses. Truly, satire is the lowest form of humor!

The Onion? You have got to be KIDDING me... (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515600)

lol, The Onion? If you are going to give a Pulitzer to any satirical news show, it should be the The Daily Show, which has done far more to advance News on an informative level and humor level than the Onion has. The Onion is just a parody site, that has parroted back warped versions of current events. Granted, a Pulitzer is probably just for print journalism (I am guessing), but if you are going to start lobbying to create new categories, create one to recognize a show that has substance and lulz.

Re:The Onion? You have got to be KIDDING me... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515830)

There's no need to create any new categories of Pulitzers for the Onion to take one...it could certainly be a reasonable candidate for a Feature Writing award, for instance.

Re:The Onion? You have got to be KIDDING me... (0)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515920)

Oh, come on, they gave several Pulitzer's to the New York Times, why not The Onion? There's at least as much fact in Onion stories as the ones the NYT won Pulitzers for.

Re:The Onion? You have got to be KIDDING me... (1)

jrroche (1937546) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516032)

To be fair, the Daily Show and the Onion are different in that the Daily Show mostly presents actual news in a funny manner, whereas the Onion is full blown satire. The Daily Show does do satire sometimes but it isn't its core schtick. In any case, the Pulitzer is only for print journalism. There already is an award for television, the Emmy, and the Daily Show has won it for eight consecutive years.

Re:The Onion? You have got to be KIDDING me... (2)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516300)

Correction... the Pulitzer simply is only for print. Journalism is irrelevant.

A Fictional novel can win a Pulitzer too, for example.

Re:The Onion? You have got to be KIDDING me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36516730)

It's not a crazy suggestion. It's not as if people are suggesting a Pulitzer for ABC, NBC, Fox, or CNN for their "infotainment" programming.

Re:The Onion? You have got to be KIDDING me... (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 2 years ago | (#36517678)

So I'm not the only one not on the Onion bandwagon.

I see the Onion as one (early) stage of internet/web usage.

The first stage is getting an email address. At this point, getting and forwarding jokes and humorous links is a novelty.

Then one day, someone forwards you a link to an Onion story. It used to be the big gateway story was "local man reports bowl is cashed." I have no idea what the current gateway story is.

Anyway, you follow the link and laugh at the story. So much so that you continue to read all the current stories, infographics, and what-not.

So now the Onion is on your daily reading list. It's great--it's edgy, it's funny, it's hip without taking itself too serious.

At some point some foreign language news service picks up an Onion story, not understanding the site is humor and parody. The story gets passed around for a couple hours before someone traces it back to its origin. And now you're edgy because you're 'in' on the joke.

Then 4 to 6 months goes by. Maybe 9 if you're slow or easily amused. And you start to realize, all these stories are just slight twists on the same theme. It's the same jokes, day after day. Yes, they are funny jokes. But not that funny.

Looking back, you realize the Onion has about 1 or 2 months of good material (if that much). It's good material, so you still laugh the 2nd time around. But eventually, even the funniest joke gets old if it gets told enough times.

Then you're done with the Onion and never look back. Then it's on to lol catz or Fark or whatever.

If you've never heard of the Onion, by all means, check it out. Very funny stuff.

However, if after a few months, you're still going back to the Onion, I don't know what to say. You probably watch Leno, too.

Like it hasn't been said yet... (1)

threeseas (2245516) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515634)

This goes to show fake news media can be more real than real news media,,, for at least its honest and relevant about what it does,

I don't know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515650)

this seems like a story that The Onion would write.

Funny and Fake (1)

h4x0t (1245872) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515672)

Very few stories (none come to mind) in The Onion are real at all. This is distinctly different from Colbert or Stewart.

Re:Funny and Fake (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36517930)

There's a element of truth to them all. "Black Man Given Worst Job in America," for example. True, from a certain perspective, and poignant commentary on race relations. From today's issue, "NASA Finds Evidence Of Humans On Moon," is 100% true and funny for several reasons. Another one, "Pakistani Intelligence Announces Its Full Cooperation With U.S. Forces During Upcoming Top Secret June 12 Drone Strike On Al-Qaeda At 5:23 A.M. Near Small Town Of Razmani In North Waziristan," is so close to true, it might as well be. I would argue that the Onion's reporting has been more insightful and better written than the best of Colbert and Stewart combined.

Logical argument? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36515722)

"The movement has grown so large that you can find videos from Tom Hanks and Arianna Huffington among the user submissions."

This is not a logical statement. Maybe you meant to say:

The movement has grown so large that you can't even find videos from Tom Hanks and Arianna Huffington among the user submissions.

Re:Logical argument? (1)

siride (974284) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516380)

No. The original actually makes sense. Because the movement is so large, even folks like Tom Hanks and A Huffington, who presumably would not bother with trivial movements, have gotten involved. Yours says that the large size of the movement would mean one should not expect submissions from Hanks and Huffington.

Re:Logical argument? (1)

Stupendoussteve (891822) | more than 2 years ago | (#36520854)

OP is saying the movement is so large you can't find them, not that they aren't there. It's like Where's Waldo. Of course this is untrue, or nobody would know they were there.

I've actually learned stuff from The Onion. (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515738)

I've learned stuff from The Onion. The most memorable tidbit was when they did the Third Amendment Rights Group Celebrates Another Successful Year http://www.theonion.com/articles/third-amendment-rights-group-celebrates-another-su,2296/ [theonion.com] which mentions Engblom v. Carey. When I saw that my thought was "wait, is that a real court case?" And it turned out it is - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey [wikipedia.org] . Really, an actual case revolving around your right for the government not to quarter soldiers in your homes. The Onion is awesome. They don't just do satire, they do clever, well-informed satire that is well-researched and includes neat factual details.

Pull it -- surprise! (1)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 2 years ago | (#36515910)

If Dave Barry can win one, so can The Onion.

poor Dave (2)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#36519222)

Poor Dave Barry, finally gets a movie made from one of his stories, and it turns out his farce about a stolen atomic bomb finally makes it to theaters mere months after 9/11.
And it had Tim Allen in it.

Okay but... (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#36516508)

It's still not funny.

Maybe you will argue it's an amazing periodical achievement. Or that it's an important piece of American satire. However, it does not imbue me with chortling.

Do it for Herbert Kornfeld... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36517318)

Remember our beloved Herbert, Accounts Payable Supervisor at Midstate Office Supply. It would be a fitting tribute to us "officin peeps" for The Onion to win. Mourn ya til I join ya, H-Dog.

How it works (1)

thomst (1640045) | more than 2 years ago | (#36518168)

According to the official guidelines, there are 14 categories of journalism Pulitzer [pulitzer.org] . Leaving aside the ones that cant be made to apply to the Onion's ouvre (a distinguished example of investigative reporting, for instance), there are only four potential categories in which it could compete:

Category 1 - a distinguished example of public service by a newspaper or news site,

Category 9 - commentary, or

Category 11 - editorial writing, the test of excellence being clearness of style, moral purpose, sound reasoning, and power to influence public opinion in what the writer conceives to be the right direction.

The guidelines state that anyone - that includes you, gentle reader - may submit an entry for consideration. You don't have to be The Onion or even have The Onion's permission to submit it for a Pulitzer. All you have to do put together a submission package that conforms to the Pulitzer guidelines [pulitzer.org] (pdf), and pay the $50 entry fee.

I suspect that a flood of thousands of third-party entries on behalf of The Onion would be certain to garner sufficient attention on the part of the Pulitzer Board to guarantee it would, at a minimum, take into consideration awarding a special Pulitzer to The Onion, if not next year (It's too late to enter the Onion for consideration for this year), then in s subsequent year sometime in the not-too-distant future. And I'm certain that would be the case, if the flood of third-party applications recurs in 2013 and 2014.

FWIW, Next year's deadline is February 11, 2012, and the window for submission opens January 1, 2012, for work originally published during 2011.

So, to summarize, if you think The Onion deserves a Pulitzer, it's within your power, both as an individual, and especially as a community, to lobby very effectively for that to happen. All that's required is that you, as an individual, spend a little time, effort, and money crafting an entry submission on behalf of The Onion, and then send that sucker in on January 4, 2012 (because New Year's Day falls on a Friday next year, so you're likely to be too busy taking advantage of the long weekend to want to hit the Post Office or UPS store on the 2nd). And, if enough of you, as a community, spend that time, effort, and money, you just might make it so.

They'll have to call it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36518654)

Pullwitzer prize

Onion bought Steam?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36521238)

What!? The Onion bought Steam?! How much?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>