Another fake "Pulitzer Prize nominated" playwright

[followspot]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 12:19pm

Earlier this year I took issue with publicity materials and reviews for a new Tanya Barfield play that referred to Barfield as a "Pulitzer Prize nominated playwright" — an erroneous claim that I also found appeared (since deleted — not by me) on Barfield's Wikipedia page. 

Now I'm reading the same nonsense about a current Barrow Group production of Craig Wright's The Pavilion:  The Pavilion

A quick Google search shows articles going back to 2005 referring to Wright's 2000 play The Pavilion as a "Pulitzer finalist."  It was not a Pulitzer finalist.  Wright has never been a Pulitzer finalist. (His Wikipedia page makes no such claim, but his IMDb page does.)

Previous Tanya Barfield thread

Pulitzer Prize for Drama - Winners and Finalists

Craig Wright - IMDb

No doubt The Pavilion — an excellent play — was submitted for Pulitzer consideration.  This does not make it a "Pulitzer nominee." Only finalists, named by the Pulitzer committee, are "nominees."

From the official Pulitzer Prize website: "The Pulitzer Prize Board generally selects the Pulitzer Prize Winners from three nominated finalists in each category. The names of nominated finalists have been announced since 1980. Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission. Since 1980, when we began to announce nominated finalists, we have used the term 'nominee' for entrants who became finalists. We discourage someone saying he or she was 'nominated' for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us."

Slippery slope.

 

Updated On: 7/7/15 at 12:19 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 12:44pm

Keep fighting the good fight, I guess. 

[followspot]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 12:54pm

Yes, I'm sure I sound like a nut, but in reality am only a mildly OCD former publicist.  Overstatement in PR usually just makes me chuckle.  Completely false claims are another thing.  Coincidence that I stumbled across these two related instances — two shows I only read about because I was interested in seeing them — within months of each other.

 

Updated On: 7/7/15 at 12:54 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 1:01pm

I do not think it is technically incorrect to say that both of these playwrights were nominated; they were, which simply means that a theatre submitted their play. So far as I can tell from what you reference, the publicity in question does not assert that the playwright was a finalist. While it may be true that there are articles on the internet saying "finalist," but these theatres don't own the internet. There are also articles on the internet saying that the earth is flat. If you haven't learned by now that you cannot take anything you read in an article on the internet as gospel, today is a very important day in your life.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 1:10pm

^True; being nominated by a theater holds some (limited) cache. Mainly, tossing around "Pulitzer" without actually winning the big prize reads like bio inflation to most people in the theater.  Run with wins, leave also-ran recognition out (it tends to have a limited shelf life anyway). It also sets up expectations, and we live in a culture that thrives on unmet expectations.    

[followspot]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 1:11pm

For HH: The Pavilion — "Pulitzer prize finalist"

And I'll repeat, from the Pulitzer site itself: "Since 1980, when we began to announce nominated finalists, we have used the term 'nominee' for entrants who became finalists. We discourage someone saying he or she was 'nominated' for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us."

 

Updated On: 7/7/15 at 01:11 PM

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 1:13pm

The problem is the wording. Being "nominated" has a wide interpretation.

 

What the Pulitzer has are "finalists", not nominees.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 1:25pm

Follow, they can discourage whatever they want. (And for that matter they could define terms so they could define terms so that saying someone was nominated is explicitly wrong.) But what was said is NOT untrue and it is also worth noting that it was not said by the "nominee" (to whom, solely,  what the Pulitzer's "discourage" is directed).

[followspot]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 1:37pm

HH, all I can say is I'm sure Tanya Barfield and Craig Wright would agree with you.

Here's an article on the same issue occurring in journalism: Also Not a Pulitzer Prize Nominee

 

[HorseTears]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 1:46pm

I'm with ya, followspot.  Almost as bad as nominated films which used to - until I believe the Hollywood Foreign Press and Academy told them to stop - market their films as:

 

WINNER

5 Golden Globe Nominations

[Comden Green]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 1:49pm

I'm with you followspot. And this is nothing but embarrassment for the playwright who should veto the description. 

 

Good detective work.  

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 1:53pm

Follow, i am sure they would, as would any person who didn't have to try saving face after overstating a criticism. Now to be clear, I think it is a sketchy thing to do, but in the scheme of things, where the constant spinning we get in publicity materials is endemic ("the best show on Broadway," off-off-Broadway shows advertised as bieng off-Broadway, etc etc etc), this one seems to rank pretty low. 

[eperkins]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 1:54pm

Being submitted for a Pulitzer, and actually being nominated for the award are two completely different things. From all submissions, the Pulitzer committees select those they feel are worthy to be nominees/finalists. From those, the winner is selected. Being submitted for consideration does not make you a nominee for the award.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 1:56pm

I think I was once nominated for a Pulitzer.

It's very possible that I was the one that submitted the nomination...

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 2:01pm

 

"Nominations" is being used incorrectly. The proper word, from their website and wiki, is "submissions".

After that, there are only finalists and winners.

 

The "fake" simply used the word nomination instead of the word submission.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 2:50pm

You guys seem determined to make a mess out of this. 

The committee does not nominate; it selects finalists and a winner. It is an honor to be nominated by a theatre (or, if you prefer, submitted), but to the uninformed it suggests something more than it is. The committee uses the expression "nominated finalist" to refer to someone who has been nominated by a theatre and then selected as a finalist.

There are more important causes in the world than this. 

[eperkins]

Posted: 7/7/15 at 5:31pm

Theatres do NOT nominate plays, they submit them for consideration. From the Pulitzer site: 

Columbia University awards the Pulitzer Prize in Drama annually on the recommendation of The Pulitzer Prize Board, which acts on the nominations of a distinguished committee of Pulitzer Drama Jurors. The award is announced during the Spring.

http://www.pulitzer.org/files/entryforms/2016dramabbn.pdf

 

Claiming to be nominated for a Pulitzer, when in fact you have only been submitted, is disingenuous at best.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 1:28am

Play with semantics if you must, but there's an obvious connotation by using the word "nominated" and it's disingenuous to use it when all someone did was submit their work for consideration. This is something that will probably irk people if they've had experience with dealing with people bolstering up their credentials and/or being fraudulent about their accomplishments. Sure if you look at the grand scheme of things, this is of little concern to most people, but everything would be of little concern if we use that as a gauge. I'm sure the Pulitzer committee doesn't think it's of little concern to them since it's their name and brand on line. Also, the "Best show on Broadway" is more puffery and opinion (and probably an actual quote from someone) as opposed to being a borderline misstatement of fact (as in saying you are a Pulitzer Prize nominee giving people a very real idea that you were a finalist unless you decide to do actual research and read what the correct terminology to use. Not to mention using a term they are asked not to use by the Pulitzer people). As much as we like to be above titles and awards, I think people do care if someone is purposefully giving the wrong idea about their accolades, especially people who are in the same field.

Updated On: 7/8/15 at 01:28 AM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 1:41am

I am persuaded by the information eperkins provided, but what scotty seemingly doesn't know is that (a) playwrights can't submit their work; it has to come from a theatre and (b) the "culprits" complained of here are theatre marketing departments, not playwrights "bolstering up their credentials and/or being fraudulent about their accomplishments."

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 2:44am

Point well taken. I do wonder how distanced most playwrights are from the submission process and how far the news that a theater submitted their work for Pulitzer consideration reaches that it'll show up on one's IMDB's page (Craig Wright) or Wikipedia page (Tanya Barfield, at least formerly listed). Maybe the Theatre changed it on their own accord or notified whoever is in charge of their publicity or maybe a fan of theirs saw the old theatre write-up marketing them as a Pulitzer nominee and took it to be true and decided to change Ms. Barfield's Wikipedia page.

Updated On: 7/8/15 at 02:44 AM