The Pulitzer prizes seem to be awarded now for who stirs the pot most, not who uncovers the truth.  Because if the truth of the Russia collusion investigation were important, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes, who exposed FBI and Obama administration investigative misbehavior in this bogus scandal, would have walked off with the prize.

Instead, we have the New York Times and the Washington Post sharing the honors for national reporting on the matter.

The national reporting prize went to The Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of Mr. Trump's possible ties to Russia – a recognition of two journalism stalwarts that exposed the hidden activities of the Trump White House while withstanding much presidential ire.

The Times sang its own praises this way, linking its winning stories:

The staff of The Times was recognized with the national reporting award for changing the nation's understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 election, investigating whether there was collusion between the President Trump's campaign and Russia and whether Mr. Trump had tried to obstruct the investigation.  The Times shared the award with The Washington Post.

The prize announcement came on the very day Special Counsel Robert Mueller declared that "'Many' news stories on Trump-Russia probe are wrong."

The Russia, Russia, Russia coverage done by the New York Times and the Washington Post, which also got the prize, did a lot to churn the waters politically and create chaos in the Trump administration, based on its reportage derived from leaks from Deep State sources still embittered by the election of President Trump over Hillary Clinton.  It was this reporting that triggered the appointment of the special counsel investigation of Trump, as the Washington Post noted:

The Post's revelations about Russia, including contacts between Russian figures and President Trump's associates and advisers, helped set the stage for the special counsel's ongoing investigation of the administration.

And this has turned up...nothing, following the hysterical left-wing allegations that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton.  It wasn't even the kind of reporting that takes a lot of skill; it was pretty well premised on nothing more than having malevolent-minded Deep State sources leaking their stories, their anonymity protected by the papers, which had a prize to win.

The stories listed aren't the ones that turned up as bad information or were obvious instances of the papers allowing themselves to be used as pawns.  But it sure as heck wasn't in the authentic league of excellence that the Times' Harvey Weinstein reporting merited, along with the even better shoe-leather reporting from Ronan Farrow of the New Yorker for his Weinstein story, which was done against massive obstacles from the sources, Weinstein, and the publishers he wanted to publish with.  The whole dynamic of the Russia reporting was that it led to a feeding frenzy that spawned a lot of bad reporting such as was seen from CNN, which got facts wrong by relying on Democratic operatives such as Adam Schiff and his staff as their sole sources in its reporting, and false reports that eventually got the journalists (including a previous Pulitzer-winner) fired.  But it also affected the winners of the prize, such as the New York Times, which allowed itself to be played as a pawn in the political games of Ben Rhodes, Andrew McCabe, James Comey, and others in this league.  One such story was the leak that claimed that the entire FBI Russia investigation was triggered not by the Steele dossier, but by some Australian diplomat talking with a drunk Trump adviser in London and reporting it to the bureau in Washington.  That was a clear-cut case of the press allowing its big press voice to be used as a megaphone by sleazy political operatives determined to shift the "narrative."

As Fox News's news chief Brit Hume noted on Twitter:

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

Reread the Times’ tweet. It speaks of “possible ties.” Perhaps you should ask the Times what they mean.

— Brit Hume (@brithume) April 17, 2018

Twitchy has a collection of great hysterical responses from tweeters who pointed out the similarity between Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and this award, as well as blue-check swamp journalists harrumphing, here.