So the Washington Post won six Pulitzer Prizes. The New York Times took home two. Even Reuters picked one up. But perhaps it's a little unfair to award journalism's most prestigious awards only to the media organizations who can actually afford to be in the game? Whiny argument below!

Unlike Bonds, who has been accused of using illegal steroids to enhance his performance, the writers and photographers who earned the industry’s highest honor did nothing inappropriate to devalue their achievements.

But nearly all of them were competing with an unfair advantage, because they were lucky enough to work for the relatively few remaining news organizations still in good enough economic condition to afford the staffing and other resources necessary to produce distinguished coverage.

It’s no happenstance that the Washington Post collected half a dozen Pulitzers, given that its well-staffed newsroom (now in the process of being reduced by early-retirement incentives) has been largely immune from the cost cutting that has thinned the ranks at most other newspapers. And the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which shared top investigative honors, still has a dedicated, 10-person investigative unit after undergoing its own bout of layoffs. [Newsosaur]