I need to try to find the article I read that detailed factual mistakes found in Blum's Airmail articles on the murders--things that were checked against the PCA and court documents. I know it has also been discussed in these threads.
I noticed that on a lot of the publicity for the upcoming book, including the publisher (HarperCollins), this is included (BBM): "The definitive, inside story of the Idaho murders from bestselling author Howard Blum,
whose groundbreaking coverage of the story was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize." In his bio on several sites, it also mentions that when he worked for the NYT he was nominated twice for the Pulitzer for investigative journalism.
https://www.harpercollins.com/produ...es-falling-howard-blum?variant=41292317949986
But here's the problem I have with using being "nominated" as a brag point: "Any person may submit material to the Pulitzer Prize competition, including editors, journalists or members of the public." Heck, you can enter your own work. All you have to do is meet the guidelines, pay $75, and fill out a form.
https://www.pulitzer.org/page/2024-journalism-submission-guidelines-requirements-and-faqs
But wait, maybe he's a "nominated finalist" you say--nope. You can search on the Pulitzer Prize website. They publish the winner and the nominated finalists for each category. He is not a nominated finalist for either this series or his work for the NYT. He was entered or entered himself for consideration. And that's as far as it goes. The Pulitzer Prize website even calls this out as being an ongoing problem (BBM):
"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. No information on entrants is provided. 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."
And this is what he is using as a credential in this case to give legitimacy to the book. Remember that as all the TV/print/podcast interviews with him start coming out this week.
Is it possible he has some small amount of insider information from talking to people before the gag order? Sure. But the rest of his info.....needs fact checking.