For a distinguished example of breaking news photography in black and white or color, which may consist of a photograph or photographs, a sequence or an album, Ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
Awarded to the Associated Press Staff for its stunning series of photographs of bloody yearlong combat inside Iraqi cities.
The pictures can be found here. Take a look and then come back here.
Did you look at them all? What did you notice? Rusty Shackleford at The Jawa Report breaks it down:
5 of the 20 photos were taken by journalists who were working with terrorist forces. 11 of the 20 photos would likely cause anti-American inflamation. Only two show Americans in a positive light. Three more show the victims of terrorism.
...
To their credit, at least three photos show the victims of terrorism. See, fair and balanced.
No photos show U.S. troops rebuilding Iraq. No photos show U.S. troops playing with kids in the street. No photos show the results of the first democratic election in Iraq. No photos show the thousands of freed prisoners from Saddam's tyrranical rule.
Gaijinbiker at Riding Sun expands on this:
I looked at the twenty photographs and broke them into groups on the basis of content. Here are my results:
• U.S. troops injured, dead, or mourning: 3
(2, 3, 11)
• Iraqi civillians harmed by the war: 7
(4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 18)
• Insurgents looking determined or deadly: 3
(6, 15, 20)
• US troops looking overwhelmed or uncertain: 3
(7, 12, 14)
• US troops controlling Iraqi prisoners: 2
(16, 17)
• Iraqis celebrating attacks on US forces: 2
(1, 19)
Equally telling is what the photos don't show:
• US forces looking heroic: 0
• US forces helping Iraqi civillians: 0
• Iraqis expressing support for US forces: 0
• Iraqis expressing opposition to insurgents: 0
Yes, the photos are impressive and are worthy of individual recognition. But, taken as a group, it becomes difficult to believe the Pulitzer committee is not expressing their opinion of the war in Iraq and attempting to influence public opinion.
There's also the little matter of photo number 20 and how the photographer came to be on the scene at just the right time. I won't go into detail as Powerline and others have already addressed it depth.
In 2002, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Jimmy Carter. The chairman of the prize committee, Gunnar Berge, admitted openly that, at least in his view, the prize was intended as a political message: "With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq." Of course, the Nobel Peace Prize had previously been awarded to Yassir Arafat and we all know just how committed to peace he really was.
The Pulitzer Prize for photography is not as blatant as Carter's Nobel prize. I'll even admit that it's possible the Pulitzer committee wasn't trying to make a political statement with their choices as many of my fellow bloggers are convinced. But even if they weren't, I still can't help but think that they could have chosen a more balanced set of photographs. Surely there are many images of positive events in Iraq that are just as dramatic.
In addition to The Jawa Report, the following blogs have also commented on this:
Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin again
Powerline
Blackfive
No comments:
Post a Comment