In my field, we have something called the National Magazine Awards. Magazine writers tend to be both obsessed with who wins and convinced the process is a pathetic joke. This isn’t just sour grapes, either. The last time The New Republic won a National Magazine Award, it was for publishing Betsy McCaughey’s infamous anti-Clintoncare screed “No Exit,” which is probably the worst article in the history of TNR. It’s as if the last American to win the Nobel Peace Prize was Timothy McVeigh.
Are these cases unusually egregious? Perhaps. But they are not wildly out of character with how awards generally work. A recent statistical analysis by Robert T. Hodgson, published in the Journal of Wine Economics (I kid you not), found that a wine that wins one competition is no more likely to win another competition than any other wine. Which is to say, wine awards are handed out completely at random. If you listen to movie buffs, they will tell you that the Academy Awards regularly commit unforgiveable sins of commission or omission. Look closely at any field that gives out awards, and you will probably find that injustice is more the rule than the exception.
Our mania for awards stems from a desire to sift through a chaotic world and impose linearity and a singular winner. Nearly everybody can agree that The Godfather is a better film than Earnest Goes to Camp. But if you’re deciding between Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz,you’re merely trying to quantify a simple matter of taste. Declaring one great work of art superior to others is like having an official ranking for best ice cream flavor.
Yet awards provide emotional responses—gratification, victimization, schadenfreude—that makes the ritual perversely compelling. Understanding that the process is fatally flawed, or even corrupt, seems to do nothing to diminish its appeal. Those most convinced that, say, the Oscars do a horrible job of rating films are the very people who cling to their emotional investment in the outcome.
The reductio ad absurdum of subjectivity has to be the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The official criterion for winning is having made “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.” In other words, it has no criteria at all. It can go to virtually any famous person, though under George W. Bush it evolved into a Republican patronage operation, with awards going to like-minded ideologues (Irving Kristol, Robert Bartley, Norman Podhoretz, among many others) or the goats of the Iraq war (Tommy Franks, George Tenet).
A former speechwriter for George W. Bush recently revealed that the administration nixed J.K. Rowling’s candidacy on the grounds that her books “encouraged witchcraft.” With such arbitrary standards to begin with, who could possibly complain? If you’re considering grounds to deny somebody an honor given out to Robert Bartley and Tommy Franks, suspicion of abetting witchcraft is as good a reason as any.
The Nobel Peace Prize, of course, represents the gold standard of all awards. (“I’d kill for a Nobel Peace Prize,” as Steven Wright once put it.) Yet it’s widely understood that the committee frequently chooses recipients in order to encourage or empower them, rather than to reward actual achievement. This year, the committee decided to give it to Obama because, well, he seems like such a nice young man.
The choice, judged on meritocratic terms, is completely silly, but no less so than the shock and outrage it produced. What do people expect? It’s not like they gave the award to Hitler.
Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic.
Print
COMMENTS (5)
Are you trying to suggest that when the Academy Awards announced its pick for the best picture of the year, there might actually have been a better picture out there?
Okay, which one?
And does President Obama know about this? It might make him feel better to know that maybe, just maybe, he really doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
[Secretly, though, Barack wants them to change it to the Obama Peace Prize. Some say his insuffereable ego is matched only by his insufferable lies. No awards invented yet for that though]
Oh, and maybe your teacher will win it next year. She's a puppeteer, right? And hot air always helps. Does she speak bullshit?
Oh boy: Your field.
The "National Magazine Awards". ... view full comment
Are you trying to suggest that when the Academy Awards announced its pick for the best picture of the year, there might actually have been a better picture out there?
Okay, which one?
And does President Obama know about this? It might make him feel better to know that maybe, just maybe, he really doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
[Secretly, though, Barack wants them to change it to the Obama Peace Prize. Some say his insuffereable ego is matched only by his insufferable lies. No awards invented yet for that though]
Oh, and maybe your teacher will win it next year. She's a puppeteer, right? And hot air always helps. Does she speak bullshit?
Oh boy: Your field.
The "National Magazine Awards". Hey, too bad about TNR. But it could have been worse. Hell, what if Stephen Glass had won for "Hacker Heaven"?
Life is cruel. If you go to Wikipedia, the Stephen Glass entry is longer than Marty's. And longer than yours. And way, way, way, way, way longer than mine. Or, what's left of it after JD's edits.
Anyway, it's closing in on the end of the year. Time for all of us to start thinking about the Most Important Story Of The Year.
Up until today I was placing all my chips on the White House contribution to the Wall Street scams. But after being rivited by CNN's coverage of Balloon Boy, it's all back up in the air again.
Gee, I wonder how long his Wikipedia entry will be?
gw
"Yet it’s widely understood that the committee frequently chooses recipients in order to encourage or empower them, rather than to reward actual achievement."
Since when? If it was "widely understood" that the award is simply to encourage or embolden individuals, no one would have been upset. It's precisely because it is widely understood to be the opposite -- an awarding of achievement in the area of peace -- that Obama's selection has drawn so much ire.
"Yet it’s widely understood that the committee frequently chooses recipients in order to encourage or empower them, rather than to reward actual achievement."
Since when? If it was "widely understood" that the award is simply to encourage or embolden individuals, no one would have been upset. It's precisely because it is widely understood to be the opposite -- an awarding of achievement in the area of peace -- that Obama's selection has drawn so much ire.
I think you're right, oscist, that it wasn't widely understood; I think I disagree with you on whether it was an actual misunderstanding (assuming I'm not reading too much into what you wrote). The NPP usually goes to people with no accomplishments (a Foreign Policy article 6 months ago wrote that something like 27 of the last 37 have), and some of the most celebrated recipients hadn't accomplished anything at the time. Think MLK Jr. or Aung Suu Kyi. Others had accomplishments, but they weren't really related to peace (Mother Theresa).
Also want to nitpick Mr. Chait here: just because wine awards don't all go to similar wines doesn't mean that the distribution is completely random. It cou ... view full comment
I think you're right, oscist, that it wasn't widely understood; I think I disagree with you on whether it was an actual misunderstanding (assuming I'm not reading too much into what you wrote). The NPP usually goes to people with no accomplishments (a Foreign Policy article 6 months ago wrote that something like 27 of the last 37 have), and some of the most celebrated recipients hadn't accomplished anything at the time. Think MLK Jr. or Aung Suu Kyi. Others had accomplishments, but they weren't really related to peace (Mother Theresa).
Also want to nitpick Mr. Chait here: just because wine awards don't all go to similar wines doesn't mean that the distribution is completely random. It could be a point of decorum not too try to overshadow another award by choosing the same recipient, for example, or (more likely) it could be like college admissions in that it's roughly random selection over a non-randomly chosen set of top candidates. With a large enough pool of excellent wines to choose from you wouldn't have any repeats, but you wouldn't have the kind of silliness implied by "completely random", with Cristal as likely to win as Night Train
Originally the award was designed to be given to those who had done the most to bring about peace. This means it should go to international mediators and those who make peace with their internal or external enemies. While there might not be good candidates every year, there are many who fit this criterion who haven't received the award. It took the Nobel Committee in Oslo 23 years to award Carter for mediating the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. There are two figures in the Obama administration who deserve it for their work in the Clinton administration: George Mitchell for mediating the Good Friday Agreement in Belfast in 1998; Richard Holbrooke for mediating the Dayton Accords for Bosnia in ... view full comment
Originally the award was designed to be given to those who had done the most to bring about peace. This means it should go to international mediators and those who make peace with their internal or external enemies. While there might not be good candidates every year, there are many who fit this criterion who haven't received the award. It took the Nobel Committee in Oslo 23 years to award Carter for mediating the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. There are two figures in the Obama administration who deserve it for their work in the Clinton administration: George Mitchell for mediating the Good Friday Agreement in Belfast in 1998; Richard Holbrooke for mediating the Dayton Accords for Bosnia in 1995. Obama should give each of them half of the peace prize.
I'm of the opinion that Obama's redirection of U.S. foreign policy away from unilateralism is itself Nobel-worthy.
I'm of the opinion that Obama's redirection of U.S. foreign policy away from unilateralism is itself Nobel-worthy.