Pulitzer Prize Controversy

Recently, Mosab Abu Toha, known for his support of Hamas and controversial statements about Israeli hostages, received the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for commentary due to a series of essays regarding Gaza published in The New Yorker.

This outcome isn’t surprising, especially considering the Pulitzer Prizes seem to have lost much of their credibility.

You might expect the Pulitzers, managed by Columbia University, to try to mend their reputation after previously granting awards to various discredited entries that perpetuated the Russia collusion narrative. Instead, they seem to have taken a different path.

For instance, the prize for “public service” went to ProPublica, a left-leaning site, for “highlighting the deadly outcomes of abortion restrictions.” ProPublica has been criticized for presenting political propaganda in the guise of journalism, which gives it a false air of authenticity.

One of their major claims regarding abortion is arguably poorly researched and reflects a lack of journalistic rigor, worse than their past efforts against Supreme Court justices. In a more critical environment, journalism schools should point to these stories as examples of inadequate reporting.

Consider their award-winning piece about Amber Thurman. In August 2022, the 28-year-old from Georgia admitted herself to a hospital due to severe pain caused by an infection following a medication abortion just days earlier.

A notable point in ProPublica’s reporting is the complete absence of any verified source asserting that abortion legislation hindered doctors from assisting Thurman.

In fact, readers must sift through the piece until they reach the 57th paragraph to find a statement acknowledging the ambiguity surrounding why medical help was delayed.

That’s quite a significant admission to bury so deep in the article. The headline claims to demonstrate that “Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care,” yet it seems the evidence doesn’t support this assertion.

By “not clear,” the piece implies that there’s no supporting evidence to suggest any hesitation on the part of doctors regarding necessary medical procedures due to fear of legal implications surrounding Georgia’s abortion law.

Rather than providing solid proof, ProPublica opts to quote unnamed OB-GYNs or pro-abortion advocates who engage in speculative assertions.

In the industry, this is referred to as a “column.”

ProPublica also tends to blur the lines between miscarriages and elective abortions. Notably, the fetuses in question had already been aborted, so there was no justification for any doctor to withhold medical care from Thurman, a fact that feels crucial to have included in a 3,400-word investigative article.

No matter your stance on abortion, this doesn’t classify as proper journalism. Still, it appears such works can earn Pulitzer recognition these days.

The undeniable fact in Thurman’s case is that complications arose from the use of abortion pills. Strangely enough, ProPublica feels the need to stress that complications are, in fact, “rare,” even “extremely rare.”

However, growing evidence suggests that mifepristone may be less safe than the FDA has led women to believe. A study assessing health insurance claims for over 800,000 chemical abortions pointed out complications in roughly 10% of cases.

Perhaps those researchers should have received the Pulitzer instead.

Yet ProPublica, backed by affluent progressive organizations, seems focused on crafting narratives for political use. Remember when many analysts predicted that the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision and subsequent state abortion restrictions would deal a fatal blow to the GOP?

Remarkably, just a week after the Thurman article was published, Axios reported that Senate Democrats planned a campaign on emergency abortion care, citing ProPublica’s report on the woman’s death.

Even former Vice President Kamala Harris referenced Thurman multiple times.

While ideological leanings don’t necessarily prevent a journalist from stating factual arguments, it’s difficult to believe any legitimate journalist could consider ProPublica’s Thurman narrative a well-researched piece or that Abu Toha’s essays added any clarity.

Ultimately, having Pulitzers acknowledge this kind of evident bias only serves to further diminish their already fragile credibility.