Coast papers like the New York Times,nWashington Post, Christian SciencenMonitor, and Boston Globe receivenmore than their share of awards (andnspots on the prize juries). More troubhngnis the discernible thematic bias.nWriters like Seymour Hersh, SydneynSchanberg, David Halberstam, BobnWoodward, Jack Anderson, EllennGoodman, David Broder, and MarynMcGrory capture the Pulitzer spotlightnby betraying state secrets, agitating fornprogressive reform, or attacking traditionalncommunities.nThe exceptions go a long way towardnproing the rule: George Will,nthe left’s faorite conservative, won ancommentary award in 1977, but fornWilliam Safire to receive the samenrecognition in 1978 the Pulitzer Boardnhad to oerrule an unsympatheticnjury. Will is safe, predictable, andnuninfluential, while Safire is a dangerousnman. William Buckley gets Pulitzernattention only for his thrillers, asnthe work that helped to spark thenconservative revolution has beennpassed oer for the likes of WalternSmith and Mike’ Royko. Joe Sobrannmay as well hang a picture on thenplace he’s been reserving for his (deserved)nPulitzer citation.nThe Boston Globe’s high-mindedncoverage of court-ordered desegrega-‘ntion in Boston earned a Pulitzer GoldnMedal for Public Service and a citationnlauding the Globe’s “impartialn. . . honest and accurate report ofnwhat was going on in the schools, thenstreets, the entire community.” Bostonnnewspaperman P.J. Gorkery offered anmore credible assessment recently innThe New Republic:n[The Globe] sought to reportnonly those events of the worldnthat it thought salutary for itsnreaders to know. … InnSeptember 1975, when Bostonnschools opened under a courtnorder, the Globe headlined thenopening day “Boston SchoolsnDesegregated, Opening DaynGenerally Peaceful.” In fact, asnthe Neiv York Times and thentelevision networks reported, itnwas a violent, rock-throwingnday, a dav’ of pure hate innSouth Boston, the one placenthat counted. The Globe laternreceived a Pulitzer Prize for itsnbusing coverage, a fact thatnonce and for all convinced menthat the newspaper Pulitzers arenawarded out of a cozy sense ofncomradeship, not out of anynconcern for the ideals espousednby Joseph Pulitzer.nBut could “the ideals espoused bynJoseph Pulitzer” make the prizes muchnbetter? Probably not. Ideals nevernstood in Pulitzer’s way when he builtnup the circulation of the St. Louis PostnDispatch on the basis of sensationalnarticles on prostitution, dishonest accountsnof the Spanish-American War,nand, on at least one occasion, a call fornvigilante justice. (Nobody’s all bad.)nHigh standards of journalistic ethicsndid not keep Pulitzer from shooting anman when he called him a liar, i Reportedly,nthe publisher of the New YorknTimes owns a license ror a handgun.)nPulitzer liked to style himself as anprogressive reformer, but sometimesnthe halo tilted awkwardly: When thenPost-Dispatch printed a suicide notenon the front page, the paper simultaneouslyneditorialized for new limitationsnon “the power of a coroner” tonmake “these secrets public property,”nas though coroners told newsmen whatnto print. Even if the coroner had triednto keep private notes out of the news,nPulitzer’s reporters were encouraged tonpry into officially closed governmentnrecords and proceedings—all for thenpress’s right to know. (Is there annhonorary Pulitzer for Daniel Ellsberg?)nMail-order brides from Asia are catchingnon in post-feminist America. Accordingnto a recent article in the NewnYork Times Magazine, there are now atnleast 100 agencies in the United Statesnthat specialize in bringing togethernAmerican men and Asian women. Innthe usual approach, mail-order firmsncollect photographs, addresses, andnself-descriptions from Asian womennand arrange them together in a catalogue,nwhich they sell to interestednAmerican men for anywhere betweenn.$50 and $500 for a monthly or bimonthlynsubscription. It is up to thenman to begin correspondence with thenmost appealing prospects. If everythingngoes well, if both parties like what theynsee in the letters and photos and whatnthey hear in exchanged tapes, the mannnnproposes. If accepted, he travels to thenOrient for nuptials and then brings hisnbride back to the States as soon as thenappropriate immigration papers can benfiled. Between 2,000 and 3,000 Americannmen find a mate this way everynyear.nThings don’t always work out.nThere are reports of Asian brides abusednby their new American husbandsnand of husbands given the slip byncunning brides just looking for a ticketnto America. But the Times highlightedncases where everything had gonenswimmingly: a former monk in Ohionwho feels he’s just “starting my lifennow” since marrying a Philippina andna California technician convinced thatnhis new Asian spouse will prove “truernand more loyal” than his three previousnAmerican wives. According tonDavor Jedlicka, sociologist at the Uni-nersity of Texas at Tyler, Americannmen in search of an Asian wife regardn”the women’s liberation movement asnthe cause of their problems.” Thenfeminists have made ‘-‘Americannwomen . . . aggressive, selfish, notnfamily oriented,” while Asian womennare still “family centered, undemanding,nuntouched by women’s liberation.”nThe very thought that some Americannmen might be finding submissiventraditional wives horrifies feminists.nSome have gone so far as to comparenthe mail-order bride business to 19thcenturynslave-trading and are seekingnto outiaw the practice. But no one onneither side of the Pacific is being forcednto the wedding altar. The new mailordernmarriages are simply an inevitablencultural readjustment. The latestnfigures on marriage and fertilitynamong American women suggest thatnbrute biology may erase the fragilenideals of feminism: few feminists attractnhusbands, and fewer have children.nIf America does Orientalize itsnculture over the next generation, vvenwill have Ellie Smeal to thank. Thev’dnbetter enjoy NOW, since TOMOR­nROW belongs to the sweet oldfashionedngirls having children, whilenfeminist propaganda will turn out tonhave less staying power than Shakernfurniture.nArt history has been touched up with anfeminist airbrush. It seems thatnsomebody —in addition to the oldnAUGUST 1986 / 7n