Seriously, though, I have to wonder if this isn't an education problem. The Pulitzer committee doesn't want to get caught in an embarassing error, implicitly endorsing a theory that turns out to be wrong. Neglected children are comprehensible, and everyone agrees that they're terrible, so they make great Pulitzer fodder. Credit default swaps are trickier. Why take the risk?
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/04/financial-journalism-shut-out-of-pulitzers/16404/
