I don't understand the usage of awful here. Are you using it to suggest the journalism is good and deserving of recognition (confusing) or that the Pulitzer is an award for bad journalism?
1) They genuinely don’t like the 1619 project.
2) They understand that the Pulitzer is supposed to be an award for good journalism.
3) They believe that journalism about some subjects is more likely to win a Pulitzer without being the best by illiilliiililil‘s standards. You could compare it to the concept of an “Oscar bait” movie: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_bait
I’m not sure I agree with this criticism - I think exploring tough subjects can lead to great work that is especially deserving of praise.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-th...