"This historic ground in New Mexico, scene of the first atomic explosion on earth and cradle of a new era in civilization, gave the most effective answer today to Japanese propaganda that radiations were responsible for deaths even after the day of the explosion, Aug. 6, and that persons entering Hiroshima had contracted mysterious maladies due to persistent radioactivity." —William L. Laurence"US Atom Bomb Site Belies Tokyo Tales" New York Times Sept. 12 1945

18. William L. Laurence and the atomic bomb

It is time, say Amy and David Goodman, "to strip Hiroshima's apologist and his newspaper of this undeserved (Pulitzer) prize."

I disagree. The New York Times story quoted above was inaccurate. Laurence was used by the military. No question. The scientists he quoted seemed to have gotten their science quite wrong. But does that mean he didn't deserve his 1946 Pulitzer? Perhaps we should first understand the context of this mistake, and then ask how far the Pulitzer committee should go in re-opening old controversies.

When Laurence wrote about the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945, it was as an opening to a series of stories about the scientific basis of the bomb and the massive amounts of time, energy and money that went into it.

His views were not the only ones represented in the New York Times.

Within a few days of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, protests poured into the US from around the world, including from British citizens and the Vatican, and Americans had a fair idea that the atomic bomb was in a very different class of weapons. From Aug. 1 to Sept. 1, 1945, the New York Times printed 74 articles on the bomb. Some of them describe what happened on the ground. Within a year, John Hershey's book Hiroshima was published and gave eyewitness accounts of the bombing in strong, graphic detail.

The story Laurence wrote on Sept. 12 1945 "US Atom Bomb Site Belies Tokyo Tales" simply quotes US officials and recounts a visit to the "atom bomb range" in New Mexico where radiation levels were supposedly low.

Obviously the report is inaccurate, but that was because the scientists at Los Alamos apparently got it wrong and the military apparently encouraged them to get it wrong.

True, Laurence didnt seem very skeptical. But three caveats might go with that:

1. His main focus was to describe the science that created the bomb, not detail the effects;
2. He was not insensitive to the broader human issues, and soon joined with Oppenhiemer and others insisting that there be international control of atomic weapons; and
3. All writers faced censorship during their front line service in WWII.

For example, Ernie Pyle didn't like it when the censors cut out his bits about the way the German army was disciplined and known to abide by truces to evacuate wounded from the Italian front. The censors thought he showed them as being too human. Howver, he was able to put that information back in his book Brave Men, which was sold at home in 1944.

There's another question about the idea of stripping the Pulitzer from Laurence. Should every single mistake that is found inside a Pulitzer prize winners writings opens the door for reconsideration of the prize?

No doubt criticism of journalism is healthy, and these debates can't help but sharpen our appreciation for the ethical dilemmas journalists have faced in the past. A call to strip a writer of a Pulitzer also adds a modern dimension and a certain sharpness to the debate.

But the Pulitzer committee has better things to do.