Remember that time Barack Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing? Well, the Pulitzer Prizes awarded for Public Service may have outdone that. So what was the subject that was so award-worthy? Was it Sara Carter’s coverage of the ongoing FISA warrant controversy? Or Sharyl Attkisson’s narratives detailing how the Obama Administration remotely accessed her laptop, exposing their routine Fourth Amendment abuses on American citizens? Or recognition of Catherine Herridge of Fox News, one of the best hard news journalists working today who regularly breaks major stories of national interest?

Catherine Herridge needs one. She is the only person I'll immediately drop what I'm doing to listen to.

— Spicy_Noodles (@SpicyNoodles2) April 16, 2018

Nope. It was this:

The New York Times shares the Pulitzer in National Reporting with The @WashingtonPost for coverage that unearthed possible ties between Russia and President Trump’s inner circle https://t.co/l4rodIjHy3

— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 16, 2018

That’s right. The Failing New York Times and the mistake-prone Washington Post received the prestigious Pulitzer Prize award for reporting on a story many suggest arose as “Plan B” via Bill and Hillary Clinton to knee-cap Donald Trump’s presidency, you know, just in case he won in defiance of that “dossier.”

Let’s read that again:

The New York Times shares the Pulitzer in National Reporting with The @WashingtonPost for coverage that unearthed possible ties between Russia and President Trump’s inner circle

“Possible ties.” Manufactured ties that TO DATE have yielded Nada. Zip. Zilch. And a story that whitewashes the Clinton Campaign’s part in bankrolling the now-infamous “Steele Dossier,” on which the FBI relied to attain FISA warrants to spy on Trump associates…all of which lead us to the current fustercluck, also known as the Mueller “Trump-Russia Collusion” Investigation.

So what passes for award-worthy “journalism” these days are made-up tales with no verifiable facts, but are aimed at hamstringing a “tyrant,” thereby deeming it deserving of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.

Sure. If you consider ripping our country apart a “public service.” And never mind that the growing number of Americans consider the Mueller probe a politically-motivated “witch hunt,” rather than a bona fide investigation of “collusion.” The New York Times deserves an award? Perhaps a participation trophy for leading the charge for the loosely-knitted yarn that would become the nightly narrative on cable news 24/7 since Donald Trump’s surprise win over the Worst Candidate Ever™.

Our reporters @MarkMazzettiNYT, @nytmike, @mattapuzzo, @adamgoldmanNYT, @Jo_Becker, @maggieNYT, @AllMattNYT, @ScottShaneNYT, @SharonLNYT and @EricLichtblau share the Pulitzer in National Reporting

— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 16, 2018

Of course, social media ridiculed the news all fast-and-furious like:

Don’t forget @johnpodesta & @HillaryClinton who wrote all your Collusion stories!

— Dave (@dahreal_djptrsn) April 16, 2018

Shush. We’re having a collective back-patting session!

Media now celebrating winning Pulitzer’s for reporting on things they can’t prove happened.
Bravo, journalism 2018 https://t.co/3PzZ4asFC8

— Crash Killing Animal (@Boognish12) April 16, 2018

Remember when they only gave out prizes for stories after they panned out? Good times. https://t.co/RhD54qRHnh

— Brit Hume (@brithume) April 17, 2018

https://twitter.com/todayinpoIitics/status/985983519250964480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fbrettt-3136%2F2018%2F04%2F16%2Fnew-york-times-wapo-share-pulitzer-for-unearthing-possible-ties-between-trump-and-russia%2F

Ah, yes. “Sources say” has become the “go-to” fountainhead of a lazy, irresponsible liberal media more interested in overturning an election, than accuracy and newsworthiness and this thing called fact-checking.

Did you know that "fake news" from the failing New York Times and the lyin' Washington Post just won a Pulitzer Prize? pic.twitter.com/82YfXSwHhO

— Cameron Steele (@Voyager19) April 16, 2018

The New York Times winning the Pulitzer for their Russia coverage is like the Titanic's night watchman winning an award for iceberg detection pic.twitter.com/FJCer9bcLw

— Rob Flaherty (@Rob_Flaherty) April 16, 2018

Meh. Full speed ahead!

Our national “news” media, for the most part, has become a parody, a Russia collusion-obsessed laughing stock. The New York Times deserves an award all right, for repeating the Fakest of Fake News, Joseph Goebbels style, all day, every day, until even they themselves believe it. Not to mention a sizeable swath of America who’ve imbibed their propaganda, hook, line, and proverbial sinker. But hey, they’ve hobbled a duly-elected president. Here’s your public service trophy with a side of sedition.

But wait, there’s a wee bit more:

The New York Times, along with the New Yorker, sparked the #MeToo movement, according to the politically correct inhabitants of the Pulitzer Prize offices. So brave. So courageous. (So excluding of Rose McGowan.) After decades of Harvey Weinstein hiding in plain sight of the bulk of Hollywood. And the Times’ very own coverup of said sexual predator for more than a decade:

It gets no more disgusting than this.

The New York Times ENABLED Harvey Weinstein's RAPES. Now it gets a Pulitzer for FINALLY reporting on them a decade later?

They let it happen!!!! #FakeNews #FakePrizes #SeanHannity pic.twitter.com/vM7BOJgVHf

— Rep. Steven Smith (@RepStevenSmith) April 16, 2018

MOAB. On target.

Sure, it sparked a movement…that Hollywood, and the New York Times’ own history of blue-penciling exposure of a sexual predator, are running from as fast as their stilettos, and their gum shoes, will take them. Has anyone been prosecuted? Has anyone seen Roy Moore’s accusers lately? Bueller? Bueller? Another scalp for “public service.”

What a joke, indeed.