Pulitzer Prize 2012. Warning may upset some people

Status
Not open for further replies.
London Headshots said:
He's just said he wasn't being homophobic. Words have duality of meaning. Jew and jew.

Ironically, the issue with projective terms aren't the words themselves, but people like you who insist that everyone should be outraged.
Click to expand...

I don't insist anyone be outraged. I'm outraged myself.

While the term in question can also refer to meatballs and bundles of small sticks there was no duality in Daryl's use of it.

That it has become such an everyday part of his vocabulary that he thinks it is not offensive speaks volumes for the type of person he is.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Just wanna a jump in before the thread gets locked and say thanks everyone for being so entertaining.

FWIW I think the Pulitzers are very worthy and valid.

OK, continue.
Click to expand...

If you whacked up a couple of Corrida pics we could get some really heated discussion going! :D
 
brianwar said:
I don't insist anyone be outraged. I'm outraged myself.

While the term in question can also refer to meatballs and bundles of small sticks there was no duality in Daryl's use of it.

That it has become such an everyday part of his vocabulary that he thinks it is not offensive speaks volumes for the type of person he is.
Click to expand...

No, it really doesn't. It just speaks volumes about the type of person you are and the thoughts going through your head. Be a man and accept that while you may have a slight vein of homophobia threaded in your personality, it doesn't mean that Brian, by way of his lexicon does as well.

This is much like the Christians who applauded Samuel Johnson, the creator of the first dictionary, for not including any bad words. He thanked them for their kindness, but couldn't help but enquire as to why they were searching for them in the first place.

There are a plethora of pejorative terms that have evolved in meaning, and plenty of people use such words without any reference to their etymology.

Like I say, the real problem is with people like you who may carry an undisclosed, latent homophobia, CHOOSING to become outraged, and thus being the ones who cause the real issue.

"Faggot" isn't a word I use myself, but I do recently remember going to dinner at my friends house, and him telling his boyfriend to "stop being such a queer" because he couldn't pick up a plate without oven gloves.

And as an addendum, the very fact that you'd stoop so low as to attack someone's English ability just goes to show exactly what your motive is here. You couldn't give a crap what words he uses, you just want someone to pick on.

Stop being so weak.
 
Last edited:
Daryl said:
You are funny...... so the guy gets $10k and you think that's ok?

I've seen people carved up by violence and car crashes but SOCOS don't get awards and papers do not publish pictures... But because they are from half way around the world it's all ok......

He should say thanks but no thanks.....
Click to expand...

Not entirely true.

Oli Scarff won Press Photographer of the Year at the UK Press Awards for this image (amongst others):

Top photo

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/873853-...bbing-teen-arrested-after-man-20-hospitalised


It was described by the Met as “the most powerful crime image they have ever seen”.
 
Daryl said:
No wonder this Country has got so soft. No one can sing a song or say anything now with out the happy clappy brigade coming to the rescue....

I said sorry and I did not think anything of that word.... Because Brian of War, I dont think racist or anti gay. So I don't get offended by any thing as such.
Click to expand...

What an incredibly feeble excuse. Never mind the fact that your little rant there about the "happy clappy brigade" totally voids your obviously insincere "apology" and reveals you for the bigot you clearly are. If you weren't a homophobe, you wouldn't have used that particular perjorative term in an insulting context. You sure as hell wouldn't go into a bar in Soho and start using that word, because you know it's hateful, just like you wouldn't go for a stroll around Compton in LA and shout a certain perjorative word for Africans either.

I can't believe you didn't get banned for that. In fact, I'm disgusted that you didn't.

And for the sake of being on topic, a lot of controversial photography has been highly influential in social and cultural attitude changes over the years, especially when it comes to public opinion on war. And frankly I'd much rather these prestigious awards go to provocative images that inspire debate than insipid images that are forgotten instantly.
 
Has anyone actually bothered to see what happened next

Massoud Hossaini is the first Afghan to win the Pulitzer Prize. His work captures the horror of violence in Afghanistan.

He won the breaking news photography award for a picture he took after a suicide bombing in Kabul.

His is also the first Pulitzer Prize awarded to a photographer for the Agence France-Presse (AFP) news agency.

In the picture, a girl dressed in green stands among a crowd of dead and injured people.

Blood runs down her face as she screams in shock.

The scene was also shocking for the photographer.

Hossaini captured the scene on 6 December 2011. It was the Shia Muslim festival of Ashura, the day Shias mourn for Imam Hossain, their third imam and the grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

Sitting suicide bomber

The imam was killed with his family during a war in 680 CE.

Massoud Hossaini (left) is embraced by a colleague after winning a Pulitzer Prize for photography
To mark the day, children wear green dresses to show their sympathy with the imam's children, who were also killed.

Taraneh, the girl in the photograph, "had begged her parents to get her a green dress for Ashura", Massoud Hossaini, the 30-year-old photographer, told the BBC.

Though the family is not wealthy, they granted her wish.

It was the green dress that attracted Hossaini's attention at the start of the festival, a parade through the streets of Kabul.

Shortly after, a suicide bomber sat down in the middle of the crowd and blew himself up.

The bombing killed at least 54 people, and appeared to be part of a co-ordinated attack.

Injured by shrapnel

At about the same time, another bombing in a Shia mosque killed four in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
I still can't go back and look at the pictures I took that on that Ashura day”
End Quote
Massoud Hossaini

AFP photographer

Taraneh survived. Her brother, the family's only son, died. So did her aunts and uncles.

Hossaini was injured by flying shrapnel.

"It was a tiny and deep injury on my left forearm," he said.

Despite his injury, he started taking pictures.

It was then he saw Taraneh again.

"She was screaming in shock," he said.

He captured that photo, and many others.

"Then, I asked my driver to take me back to my office because the pain was getting unbearable," he said.

Hossaini called his brother, who is a doctor, and began uploading the pictures to the wire.

"I was working only with one hand," Hossaini said.

His brother treated his wound, and Hossaini then went to his parents' home.

"I needed to be with my family," he said. "My wife was not in the city that day. I couldn't be alone."

After three hours, AFP called him to let him know that three major American newspapers had published his picture.

"It's a big deal for a photographer to see his picture on the cover of newspapers like New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post," he said.

A few days later he contacted Taraneh and her family. He also put the family in touch with his brother, Assef Hossaini, the doctor.

"For the past two, three months, we have provided help to the family," Dr Hossaini told the BBC.

The Pulitzer is the third award that Hossaini has received for this picture.

Before his Pulitzer, he won the Pictures of the Year International award for best news picture, and took second place for Spot News in the World Press Photo 2012 contest.

But the accolades cannot repair the trauma Hossaini feels when he thinks of the blast.

"I still can't go back and look at the pictures I took on that Ashura day," he said.
Click to expand...

from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17733461
 
Daryl said:
No wonder this Country has got so soft.
Click to expand...

The country hasn't gotten soft but we sure have forgotten how to speak English properly. I'd probably disagree with your posts more if I could understand what the heck you were on about.

Get off your humongous horse. What on earth is photography about if not recording moments? Photos have far greater power than pure text. It was the Pulitzer prize winning photographs of Vietnam that played such a strong role in driving public opinion against the war.
 
onona said:
What an incredibly feeble excuse. Never mind the fact that your little rant there about the "happy clappy brigade" totally voids your obviously insincere "apology" and reveals you for the bigot you clearly are. If you weren't a homophobe, you wouldn't have used that particular perjorative term in an insulting context. You sure as hell wouldn't go into a bar in Soho and start using that word, because you know it's hateful, just like you wouldn't go for a stroll around Compton in LA and shout a certain perjorative word for Africans either.

I can't believe you didn't get banned for that. In fact, I'm disgusted that you didn't.

And for the sake of being on topic, a lot of controversial photography has been highly influential in social and cultural attitude changes over the years, especially when it comes to public opinion on war. And frankly I'd much rather these prestigious awards go to provocative images that inspire debate than insipid images that are forgotten instantly.
Click to expand...

I quite happily call my gay friends a mixture of faggot, queen, raving woofter, poof, fairy and a number of other things; in Soho, in Trafalgar Sq at Pride and a lot of other places. They give back just as good as they get (the straight insults are far less printable).

Have you actually ever been to a gay club? They are one of the bitchiest (and also funniest) places I've been.
 
London Headshots said:
This is pretty much where I am. Accepting this prize, for me, negates any impact, significance, or validity it might've held as a standalone documentary of the scene.
Click to expand...

Right. Because none of those things (impact, significance and validity) are what is celebrated by a Pulitzer in the first place :suspect:.
 
onona said:
What an incredibly feeble excuse. Never mind the fact that your little rant there about the "happy clappy brigade" totally voids your obviously insincere "apology" and reveals you for the bigot you clearly are. If you weren't a homophobe, you wouldn't have used that particular perjorative term in an insulting context. You sure as hell wouldn't go into a bar in Soho and start using that word, because you know it's hateful, just like you wouldn't go for a stroll around Compton in LA and shout a certain perjorative word for Africans either.

I can't believe you didn't get banned for that. In fact, I'm disgusted that you didn't.

And for the sake of being on topic, a lot of controversial photography has been highly influential in social and cultural attitude changes over the years, especially when it comes to public opinion on war. And frankly I'd much rather these prestigious awards go to provocative images that inspire debate than insipid images that are forgotten instantly.
Click to expand...

Oh my God, do you people actually have anything better to do but sit around getting outraged?

You do know, right, that when you have to elevate a scenario to the extreme in order to prove your point, it's automatically negated? He didn't shout anything, he wrote text on an internet forum. Are you saying that he wouldn't be able to use the word over the Wifi connection in a pub in Soho? Because that would be closer to the truth.

But, really, if he was a homophobe, what would he be doing in a gay bar in Soho anyway?

And have you BEEN to Compton LA? I was there in February taking pictures. One assumes you would've been there, because it could be argued that you're racially stereotyping if you're going by what you've seen on TV. That's as bad as using pejorative terms out of context.
 
Last edited:
joxang said:
Right. Because none of those things (impact, significance and validity) are what is celebrated by a Pulitzer in the first place :suspect:.
Click to expand...

Hey, Joxang, do you understand the concept of individuality? As in, do you understand that when someone advances an opinion, it could be within the context of their own viewpoint?

Did you notice the part where I said "for me"?

It's a really important, nay, integral part to comprehending what I wrote.
 
onona said:
I feel torn over this.

On one hand, I think it's extremely important that controversial images like this are showcased, so I have no issue with this receiving a prize. Photographs of atrocities serve the essential function of educating the wider world without the taint of media bias; the Vietnam War era springs to mind as another period of shocking imagery - like the harrowing photography of the massacre at My Lai, or Nick Ut's photo of the children running from the napalm attack on the village of Trang Bang, which was actually the first image I thought of when seeing this one, as this echoes many of the same feelings and is likely to prompt much of the same debate, which leads me to...

... on the other hand, it is rather gauche. I know I couldn't just stand there and photograph a scene like that. While I recognise our duty as humans to record atrocities, I also can't help but wince at the insensitivity shown here. However, it's important to bear in mind that we don't know what happened afterwards; in the case of the aforementioned Vietman photo, the photographer rushed the little girl in his photo to a hospital to get treated for the burns she had suffered. It's entirely possible that the photographer here reacted similarly after taking the shot. But in all honesty, it still makes me uncomfortable, and had I been in his place, I don't think I could have taken the shot.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with you on that - While I fully get the 'need to document' I do sometimes question the attitude of the photographers involved, For example i remember seeing an interview with the tog who took the 7/7 pictures (the one of the woman with a gauze mask on her face) and they were saying that they were "honoured to be involved in such an important incident" - Honoured ???? :cuckoo: how the hell can anyone be proud of having been involved with a terrorist attack :bang:

Also is the need to document really so important - it could be argued that it just gives the perpetrators the "oxygen of publicity" which is what they want in carrying out these attrocities - as Sun Tzu said "kill one ,frighten a thousand" The Vietnam photo is different because you could argue that by highlighting the affect that the US use of napalm was having the photo helped do something to stop such occurences in the future , not the case in photographing a terrorist attack as unlike the US Government the terrs arent the least bit afraid of having their work publicised.

Mind you to be fair to the tog if he's not trained what help was he supposed to give the victims - I'd have had to put my camera down and help, but I'm a trained paramedic, chances are good that someone with no training wouldnt actually have made much difference if he had helped.
 
brianwar said:
I give it two days till this thread is filled with "He should have put the camera down and done something to help" v "He was doing his job, the world needs to see these things" arguments, a few people will take it all too personally, the insults will fly and then the thread will get locked.
Click to expand...


Apart from the last part, you were 36 hours out! :p :D
 
Does anyone know what he did with the money? If he put it into a relief fund, that would be a truly amazing contribution, and would elevate the image to another level.
 
London Headshots said:
Hey, Joxang, do you understand the concept of individuality? As in, do you understand that when someone advances an opinion, it could be within the context of their own viewpoint?

Did you notice the part where I said "for me"?

It's a really important, nay, integral part to comprehending what I wrote.
Click to expand...

Lol...I never understand this, why people on forums get really touchy when someone disagrees with their opinion. I respect your right to think the way you do, but 'for me', and 'in my opinion', there's a fundamental mistake in your reasoning...

I have individuality as well you know :lol:.
 
DemiLion said:
I quite happily call my gay friends a mixture of faggot, queen, raving woofter, poof, fairy and a number of other things; in Soho, in Trafalgar Sq at Pride and a lot of other places. They give back just as good as they get (the straight insults are far less printable).

Have you actually ever been to a gay club? They are one of the bitchiest (and also funniest) places I've been.
Click to expand...

But, as with many perjorative terms, it's all about context. I call my gay friends queens and poofs too, but it's clearly in an affectionate context. Daryl here used the word faggot specifically to insult, which is fundamentally different. Hanging around your gay friends and calling them fags affectionately is in no way even remotely comparable to going on a rage rant and calling the Pulizter Prize a "faggot contest" because in the latter case, it's being used hatefully. And no matter how pathetically London Headshots continues to try to convince anyone otherwise, there's no escaping the fact that Daryl was not using the word to mean a bundle of sticks. Because nobody insults something by calling it a bundle of sticks.
 
And the context of my post saying please get back on track passed you by?
 
Back on track - does anyone know what the criteria for the pulitzers actually are , because those photo's don't seem particularly earth shaking to me in either subject or photographic ability
 
Last edited:
joxang said:
Lol...I never understand this, why people on forums get really touchy when someone disagrees with their opinion. I respect your right to think the way you do, but 'for me', and 'in my opinion', there's a fundamental mistake in your reasoning...

I have individuality as well you know :lol:.
Click to expand...

You didn't disagree with my opinion, because I didn't give an opinion, I gave a reaction.

I also didn't ask you if you have individuality, I asked you if you understand the concept of it.

Read->comprehend->post

It's an incontrovertible formula.
 
London Headshots said:
You didn't disagree with my opinion, because I didn't give an opinion, I gave a reaction.

I also didn't ask you if you have individuality, I asked you if you understand the concept of it.

Read->comprehend->post

It's an incontrovertible formula.
Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding :(. Go read back what you said, and read what I wrote. You said that, in your opinion, accepting this prize negated its impact and significance.

I said that the whole point of the prize is awarding impact and significance. Please stop with the touchiness and actually answer the content of my post instead of getting all offended.
 
onona said:
But, as with many perjorative terms, it's all about context. I call my gay friends queens and poofs too.
Click to expand...

haha, good lord.

It's OK for you to use it as a joke in it's original context, towards the very people that you're defending, but it's not OK for Daryl to use it out of context, against nobody in particular?

You have now lost any and all rights to ever discuss the nature of offense.
 
Those who claim that use of the term by gay people means it isn't pejorative, stop kidding yourselves on.
 
joxang said:
You've got to be kidding :(. Go read back what you said, and read what I wrote. You said that, in your opinion, accepting this prize negated its impact and significance.

I said that the whole point of the prize is awarding impact and significance. Please stop with the touchiness and actually answer the content of my post instead of getting all offended.
Click to expand...

No I did not. I said "for me".

It's a key difference. 'In my opinion' would imply that my feelings applied globally, whereas 'for me' infers that it's purely personal.

Again, and I feel like I'm repeating myself, please read things before you respond.

It's impossible to offend me, don't worry.
 
And that's it, there are so many rtm's coming in about this that I'm finding it hard to keep up

So mind the doors temporarily while I await Admin opinions on whether to reopen or not
 
No, I agree it stays closed.
I'm sick of the unnecessary bickering.

[Edit : I've now read the whole thread, and my opinion stays the same]
Here is my official Admin response. No one except the administrators and the moderators know the full extent of our moderation, so to pass judgement and make a decision based solely on half a story is ill advised at best.

Thread stays closed, and the bickering stops. So do the self opinionated rants which only serve to divide the community and ruin any general feeling of goodwill.

If anyone disagrees with any moderating decisions then please feel free to use the contact us form to register your disapproval.
However, I/we won't get into a protracted debate about the ethics of a particular word, or the intent behind it.

It was used, he changed his mind before it was reported, and removed it. The end.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top