Wins Local Emmy, Murrow Award has been the recipient of two major awards in the past few weeks.

First, video journalist Ben de la Cruz became the first staffer ever to win a local Emmy Award. Ben won "Best Public/Current/Community Affairs Program or Special" for his "Homeless in D.C." series. This award came in one of the most hotly contested categories in the competition, with 22 entries. Only one other category had more entries. Here's a full list of winners.

Earlier this week, was awarded an Edward R. Murrow Award for "Best Non-Broadcast Affiliated Website. " It's the third straight year we've won that award, handed out by the Radio and Television News Directors Association.

The projects entered in this contest were:

-- Affordable Housing, by Ben de la Cruz.
-- A Life Lived in 4/4 Time, by Christina Pino-Marina.
-- Katrina Coverage.
-- Following the Money in Afghanistan, by Christina Pino-Marina and Pierre Kattar.
-- Special Report on Lebanon, by Pierre Kattar.
-- Aceh, by Travis Fox.

Here's a full list of Murrow Award winners.

These two awards are the latest honors in a year in which has been the most nominated and most honored news site in both the Digital Edge and Eppy competitions. Considering the amazing work being done in all corners of the Web these days, we're honored to be among the sites recognized.

Thanks as well to our readers, who have played a large part in the success of the site by building active communities all over the site and consistently providing advice on how to improve

Jim Brady
Executive Editor

By Jim Brady |  June 23, 2006; 11:40 PM ET  | Category:  Content
Previous: Ignatius, Zakaria Launch 'Experiment' in Global Journalism | Next: New Politics Features


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Congrats. Now, when is the Washington Post going to explain it's pre-invasion WMD coverage? No matter how many self-congratulatory industry awards you win, until the Washington Post explains why it got WMD so wrong, you can't claim to be good journalists.

Posted by: Beth | June 24, 2006 11:06 AM

You know, Beth, the whining is looking like moldy cheese? It's been how long since the incidents? Are you guys going to continue to be crybabies 5 years from now?

Your tag team isn't going to influence the content on this site with nagging, especially when it comes off as simple trolling.

This is why I believe the internet won't have much of an impact on politics, since folks know about trollers, paid seeders, and a host of other gimmicks are used by *strangers* to fluff up a position online (talking about hypocrisy in action!!).

When it comes down to the bare essentials, all politics are local anyway.


Posted by: SandyK | June 24, 2006 03:14 PM

Sandy K:

You wrote: "... trollers, paid seeders, and a host of other gimmicks are used by *strangers* to fluff up a position online (talking about hypocrisy in action!!)..."

So, which are you?

And, while we're on the topic, exactly who are "you guys"?

By your logic, anyone who has a legitimate complaint that is not, but could be, easily rectified is a "crybaby".

News organizations are the first to tout their "fairnes and impartiality" (followed closely by the sports industry and their referees). When the opposite becomes evident, it is incumbent on society (and not just the partisans) to call those organizations out for being what they actually are.

My question to you: How long can YOU GUYS actually keep your heads buried in the sand without coming up for air?

Note: Having read the blogs around here for some time, you seem to have been accused frequently of being a troller and paid seeder, as well as being a poster who uses a host of other gimmicks to fluff up your position online.

Talk about hypocrisy in action!!

Beth is absolutely correct in her position, as well as demonstrating that she has tenacity and the integrity to insist that this rag put up or shut up. You, on the other hand, don't seem to care if your team wins by cheating (in collusion with the "referees"), so long as they win.

Way to go Beth. Keep on 'em.

Posted by: smafdy | June 25, 2006 10:13 AM

I believe that the war is one of the most important news stories of the decade. I think before we send troops to fight and die, we should understand exactly why we are doing that. I think it's the job of the Washington Post and the rest of the press to explain and inform their readers the exact reality of the situation before hand. They didn't.

I believe that the Washington Post was a spectacular failure when it came to reporting on WMD's in the pre-invasion phase. They got the story wrong. Period.

The reason why we are at war has never been successfully answered.

I'm sorry Sandy but, is what you are arguing is that it's not important for the people of a nation to know why it's at war? That the people who keep pressing for reasons are "crybabies"? I guess you don't think war is all that big of a deal.

You know what? If, in five years, we are still at war in Iraq and we still don't know exactly why we are there in the first place, then, yeah, I'll be a crybaby then too.

The Washington Post has never explained it's pre-war coverage. I want to understand how and why our they failed. I want to know what they are doing to keep from failing again on such important stories.

Who cares if I impact politics? This isn't a right or left issue - I want accountability. The fact that you don't boggles me and makes me sad for our country.

Posted by: Beth | June 25, 2006 11:28 AM

Sandy K says: "You know, Beth, the whining is looking like moldy cheese? It's been how long since the incidents?"

Ms/Mr Sandy: Well, it's only been hours since the last soldier or marine died in this war. I'd say that's one of the "incidents." I'd like to know why he or she died in a GW's vanity war. "Whining"? Hell, no: it's a roar of outrage against a tragic crime facilitated in part by the trolls who villify anyone who dares to question this illegitimate president, his fake piety, and and their sycophantic hangers-on.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: peachy | June 25, 2006 05:09 PM

Yeah -- SandyK is the poster who thinks the problem is partisanship.

And she thinks Wikipedia is a good source for unbiased political information.

But when you actually post the facts, she manages to look right past them and talk partisanship again.

Nice posts Beth. Good to see you Smafdy.

Posted by: MLWAM | June 25, 2006 11:59 PM

Washington Post Staff,

Can you change the color of nicks for the Editors and blog owners (even better make it a link to a feedback email addy too)? Because what occurred at the The Fix could've been pulled off by anyone (let alone a cracker/hacker) who'd type in the editor's nick. This is especially would be noticeable at 2am when folks know WP staff's not around for hours.

Really need to cookie the usernames on blogs, too. It's a royal pain to type in the nick on e-v-e-r-y blog post here. It can cut down on responses a lot (other blogs are using signin/link services to go around this headache).


Posted by: SandyK | June 26, 2006 02:51 PM

Beth wrote:
"I believe that the Washington Post was a spectacular failure when it came to reporting on WMD's in the pre-invasion phase. They got the story wrong. Period."

What has that got to do with winning a local award and a Murrow award? Even better, what are you doing (let alone your tag team) to improve instead of just whining months later?

Nothing, huh?

Vinegar rarely offers the changes you seek, and pouring the same variety for months on every feedback entry just makes you guys look even more sour. No one is forcing you to read (and readers don't need your brand of rude and crude censorship to tell them what's right or wrong. That's for the reader to decide for themselves, not you).

I don't agree on all of the editorials or columnist articles, but I prefer a free press that has the freedom to post their POVs. People wise enough to be online know where to cross check the content for facts, they certainly don't need any partisan (which you complainers are) to tell them what is fact or fiction.

Efforts in dictating content also will fall on deaf ears when it goes against the site's best interest, too (this is universal). A feedback thread that turns into a WWF match doesn't help WP or it's readers -- so expect it to be shut down and cleaned up. Any after whining about it just looks bad on the complainer, since the rest of the world has gone on to more current news (not dwell in the past like a broken record).

So wise up, and not actually become sour pusses in the zest to discredit.


Posted by: SandyK | June 26, 2006 03:16 PM


WMDs are current news, as is the war in Iraq. Two horrendously bad national decisions that were seemingly aided and abetted by the national (read: main stream) media. The Post once had a reputation for holding public figures accountable for their actions - now they're being held accountable for theirs.

You wrote, "...they certainly don't need any partisan (which you complainers are) to tell them what is fact or fiction...". That's what we were counting on from the Post - facts. Instead, we got partisan fiction.

You also wrote, "...Even better, what are you doing (let alone your tag team) to improve instead of just whining months later?..."

What are we doing to try to improve it? We're trying to keep it honest.

If you want to be the teacher's pet, hall monitor, or Ms. Manners, feel free, if doing so is what's impotrant to you. Your goody-two-shoes act won't be well received by the bloggers here. (I've noticed you get your butt kicked on other WAPO blogs for pulling the same BS).

P.S: The original post to which you responded wasn't whiney at all. Yours, however, sounds both superior and condescending.

Tag. You're it.

Posted by: smafdy | June 26, 2006 11:09 PM

WMDs are not what this thread is about, it's about journalism awards, not a pissing contest.

What occurred at WP with that partisan invasion was wrong, as it wasn't anything to do with improving WP, it was for censorship, ("Do what we want, and shut up!"). It was ugly, personal mudraking that makes the complainers look like thugs, worse, political amateurs.

So, no, I don't buy the BS that it's all about improving WP, as you folks could've done so more coherently, with better prose, and without the vinegar. No, the lowest common denominator hand was played, and got folded quick.

Crying over spilt milk is so childish anyway.


Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 05:51 PM

Sandy K,

Still whining about partisanship?

How about actually discussing an issue?

Posted by: MLWAM | June 27, 2006 06:06 PM

And you apparently need to look up censorship at Wikipedia too.

Nobody has ever tried to censor the Post's coverage. They've just tried to hold them accountable when their coverage was clearly inaccurate and the actual data existed to demonstrate that inaccuracy.

You shoulda been here. Perhaps you could have held the smelling salts under Deborah Howell's nose.

Posted by: MLWAM | June 27, 2006 06:09 PM

Actually the reason you guys continue to gripe is to change something for your gain. If there was no incentive you wouldn't be here. :)

Using Wikipedia must smart, MLWAM. Since I really don't like it (as it has little checks and balances), but in a pinch for "What evidence do you have" ranters, it works wonders as it leaves you guys holding the bag (and if you discount it, you look like sore losers again as you're questioning the definitions you aren't an expert to discount).

Don't for a moment think you're clever with spinning, as you'll be tripped by your own petard.


Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 09:26 PM

Sandy K,

My, how I look forward to your posts here. The whining about how other people are griping. The griping about how other people are whining.

It's actually pretty funny and makes an enormous contribution to the blogginess of this blog.

Your second paragraph above is particularly impressive in this regard. It is virtually content-free, trumpeting a non-existent victory in a debate you are afraid to enter into. How truthy of you. Really a high point in the Dadist experiment this blog has become over the last few months.

I especially love the part about how your use of Wikipedia leaves us holding the bag. Senseless AND trite at one and the same time.

Welcome to You'll fit right in.

Posted by: MLWAM | June 27, 2006 10:20 PM

Senseless enough for you to spend all this time to refute me (with nothing but put downs, just like a debater who long lost their ammo). :)

Yeah, welcome to be Blogsphere (and unlike you, I've been posting online probably before you were born -- my first computer was a kit built when I recieved it in 1983 and I long remember the internet before the graphical browser). ;)


Posted by: SandyK | June 28, 2006 04:44 AM

Sandy ... who's refuting? You've offered nothing to refute. That is why you are a model poster for a bloggy blog. I'm perfect for the snark poster. We all have our jobs to do at

But allow me to point out that it did not have to be this way. I gave you a chance to refute me on the facts of the Abrahoff case (just as Jim Brady and Deborah Howell were given the chance). It seems years ago now but it was just a few bloggies ago. Your response? You blathered on about partisanship.

If you'll recall, Jimbo and Deborah huffed and puffed (Debbie virtually fainted) but signally failed to explain why their coverage was inconsistent with the facts of the Abramoff case.

Now you've shifted gears to compare computer experience as if that were somehow relevant. In fact, that sort of "from somewhere out in left field" argument really epitomizes the approach we take here at

As I said -- you fit right in.

Posted by: MLWAM | June 29, 2006 07:40 PM

Just like partisans, the only right answer is their answer. And they just blather for months afterwards about a tiny little incident. No wonder why the Democrat Party is called the "Crybaby party of the United States of America", because that is ALL they're doing now. All day, all evening, all night, cry, cry, cry.

Here, MLWAM, have a pacifier. Suck on it, not your party and with the REST OF THE WORLD. lololol


Posted by: SandyK | July 3, 2006 06:35 AM

STILL blathering about partisanship Sandy??

Guess that's all you've got left since you can't seem to actually look into the facts.

You have blogginess down pat.

No style. No substance.

Posted by: MLWAM | July 9, 2006 05:57 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company