The Pulitzer Prize is supposed to be awarded to journalists whose work is actually good for society in some way, rather than simply churning out sensationalist content for crass commercial or ulterior political motives, and yet it's named after someone whose entire career was driven by the exact opposite motivations. It's funny, much like it would be funny to name a human rights award after Idi Amin. And it answers the implied question I quoted at the beginning of the post--that the "ideals" that journalism "may have aspired to in the past" did not, in fact, exist.
Thank you! I was just watching Oppenheimer yesterday, and cringed at the part where he points out that Alfred Nobel invited dynamite as a reason he might get the award for the A bomb. It's a silly idea. As you put it, it's a quirk of history. Interesting, but not relevant.
Is this phrase used figuratively, or are there actual times when you've exercised this preference upon someone?
I think if you said that to me, in a tone which implied you were enjoying saying it, I'd probably ask you why it's relevant. For example, can you demonstrate that Pulitzer Prizes are generally awarded to "yellow journalists"? Or can you show how the recipients of the prize are in any way awarded for behaviour which you're saying Pulitzer the person exhibited. Because it just sounds like a quirk of history, rather than revealing any important facts about journalism or how prizes are awarded