Pulitzer Prize 2012. Warning may upset some people

[specialman]

That's the problem, the more the better for you to win a prize.

Have you looked at previous winners? Yes, there are some truly horrific events depicted and a heavy bias towards war and humanitarian disasters, but acts of bravery and extreme human selflessness also feature.... the woman being rescued from the foaming dam (2010) and the images of Colorado fires and the firefighters (2003) spring to mind in the breaking new category. I'll put it down to a poorly designed Pulitzer website that you haven't seen past winners....

Do people on here actually do their homework?

 

[Jayst84]

That's the problem, the more the better for you to win a prize.

I think that's becoming an almost automatic response whenever a major prize is awarded these days. I don't think it's the case at all, not in the respectable awards anyway.

As Pat says there has been a wealth of different images awarded over the years. Look at the work by Craig Walker who received the Pulitzer for feature photography this year. Incredibly powerful photography, and while it's a horrific topic, there's no gore or anything in the photos.

Anyway, the awards are to bring attention to extraordinary stories that we aren't all privy to in our everyday lives. So there's a good chance a lot of the work will be shocking.

 

[big soft moose]

With all due respect, that's a ludicrous assertion. Help perpetuate it? How? ]

because as i said in my previous post this is what AQ etc want - ie as many people as possible to see their attrocities so that they'll inspire more widespread fear.

as Sun Tzu said " kill one , frighten ten thousand" the obvious collary being that the 'ten thousand' need to know about the death of the one.

I'm not saying that new agencies shouldnt be able to report on these things at all , but printing graphic images (often accompanied by sensationalist reporting) aids the terrorists cause by giving them what they want.

Also with regard to your facepalm image in response to my point about the photographic qualities (or lack thereof) in the image in question i'd note that a) this is a photography forum and we arent in "out of focus" so comment on the photography is perfectly valid , and b) images like the face palm and terms such as "ludicrous" do not gibe with marcels instruction "to treat each others views with utmost respect" - I respect your right to hold and express an opinion that differs to mine without being subjected to ridicule - please accord me the same courtesy in return

 

[onona]

because as i said in my previous post this is what AQ etc want - ie as many people as possible to see their attrocities so that they'll inspire more widespread fear.

For a start, this wasn't an al Qaeda attack. Please actually read about the photo before arguing about it. Secondly, al Qaeda and other violent , fundamentalist organisations like them are not looking for glorification in the media. Their actions speak louder than any photo could.

And lastly, you're no longer making sense. Earlier, you asserted that images like this could help perpetuate violets acts whereas now you're saying they spread fear. That's something totally different. Surely spreading fear is in many ways the opposite of perpetuating violence?

Also with regard to your facepalm image in response to my point about the photographic qualities (or lack thereof) in the image in question i'd note that a) this is a photography forum and we arent in "out of focus" so comment on the photography is perfectly valid , and b) images like the face palm and terms such as "ludicrous" do not gibe with marcels instruction "to treat each others views with utmost respect" - I respect your right to hold and express an opinion that differs to mine without being subjected to ridicule - please accord me the same courtesy in return

As stated clearly before, the Pulitzer Prize is a JOURNALISM award. Are you seriously suggesting that when faced with such horror, photographers should haul out their tripods and start putting some thought into composition? Really? It's the immediacy of the images that makes it so powerful.

I find it pretty astounding that people don't seem to know what the Pulitzer Prize is.

 

[POAH]

Have you looked at previous winners? Yes, there are some truly horrific events depicted and a heavy bias towards war and humanitarian disasters, but acts of bravery and extreme human selflessness also feature.... the woman being rescued from the foaming dam (2010) and the images of Colorado fires and the firefighters (2003) spring to mind in the breaking new category. I'll put it down to a poorly designed Pulitzer website that you haven't seen past winners....

Do people on here actually do their homework?

Was the woman actually rescued though ?

The images for journalism do tend to show death, destruction pain etc rather than good news.

Happy news is not good for advertising

 

[specialman]

Was the woman actually rescued though ?

The images for journalism do tend to show death, destruction pain etc rather than good news.

Happy news is not good for advertising

Yed she was. Her husband perished though.

 

[Laudrup]

Have you looked at previous winners? Yes, there are some truly horrific events depicted and a heavy bias towards war and humanitarian disasters, but acts of bravery and extreme human selflessness also feature.... the woman being rescued from the foaming dam (2010) and the images of Colorado fires and the firefighters (2003) spring to mind in the breaking new category. I'll put it down to a poorly designed Pulitzer website that you haven't seen past winners....

Do people on here actually do their homework?

The charred corpses of US construction workers hanging from a bridge over the Euphrates, dead toddlers in coffins, tight shots of a wailing mother cradling her dead 12 year old son, and 'impeccably composed' photos of naked dead kids sprawled out in a posed group shot after a hurricane are the ones I remember. Trees burning doesn't really spring to mind for me, but I've seen a fire before so maybe I'm desensitised to that.

 

[Laudrup]

For a start, this wasn't an al Qaeda attack. Please actually read about the photo before arguing about it. Secondly, al Qaeda and other violent , fundamentalist organisations like them are not looking for glorification in the media. Their actions speak louder than any photo could.

And lastly, you're no longer making sense. Earlier, you asserted that images like this could help perpetuate violets acts whereas now you're saying they spread fear. That's something totally different. Surely spreading fear is in many ways the opposite of perpetuating violence?



As stated clearly before, the Pulitzer Prize is a JOURNALISM award. Are you seriously suggesting that when faced with such horror, photographers should haul out their tripods and start putting some thought into composition? Really? It's the immediacy of the images that makes it so powerful.

I find it pretty astounding that people don't seem to know what the Pulitzer Prize is.

Well in 2009 it was awarded to 'Patrick Farrell of The Miami Herald for his provocative, impeccably composed images of despair after Hurricane Ike and other lethal storms caused a humanitarian disaster in Haiti.'

So it isn't necessarily just hearing a bang and lifting the camera and holding the button down.

 

[onona]

If an image happens to be well composed, then it's mentioned simply because it's unusual for a piece of photo journalism. The point remains that the award is not for artistic excellence, but for "breaking news images".

Look, I don't expect everyone to like the photo. Hell, it's not likeable; it's horrific and unpleasant and disturbing. But that's why it's important, and that's why it's being recognised by the award.

 

[Laudrup]

I think that's becoming an almost automatic response whenever a major prize is awarded these days. I don't think it's the case at all, not in the respectable awards anyway.

As Pat says there has been a wealth of different images awarded over the years. Look at the work by Craig Walker who received the Pulitzer for feature photography this year. Incredibly powerful photography, and while it's a horrific topic, there's no gore or anything in the photos.

Anyway, the awards are to bring attention to extraordinary stories that we aren't all privy to in our everyday lives. So there's a good chance a lot of the work will be shocking.

I thought this was about the breaking news photography category though?

 

[Southdowns]

Reminds me of the lyrics from Genesis' "Blood on the Rooftops":

"Though your eyes see shipwrecked sailors you're still dry
The outlook's fine though Wales might have some rain
Saved again.

Let's skip the news boy (I'll make some tea)
The Arabs and the Jews boy (too much for me)
They get me confused boy (puts me off to sleep)
And the thing I hate - Oh Lord!
Is staying up late, to watch some debate, on some nation's fate."

If a picture like this can cut through the kind of apathy the song is talking about, then its a good thing.

Of course there is a balance to be drawn - I'd never want to think a picture, no matter how important, was captured instead of saving a life that the photographer could save - but I'd be pretty certain that in this case he did more good with his camera than he ever could have done with first aid, especially as he was injured himself.

 

[Laudrup]

For a start, this wasn't an al Qaeda attack. Please actually read about the photo before arguing about it. Secondly, al Qaeda and other violent , fundamentalist organisations like them are not looking for glorification in the media. Their actions speak louder than any photo could.

It was supposedly an organisation affiliated with al-Qaeda, who I am sure would have approved of it given their Iraqi branch carried out a similar attack in 2004. Of course they use the media though as their mouthpiece and for a recruiting drive and the glorification of their ideals, they aren't exactly clueless in the art of propaganda.

 

[onona]

It was supposedly an organisation affiliated with al-Qaeda, who I am sure would have approved of it given their Iraqi branch carried out a similar attack in 2004. Of course they use the media though as their mouthpiece and for a recruiting drive and the glorification of their ideals, they aren't exactly clueless in the art of propaganda.

It's sectarian. Al Qaeda has a problem with the west; this is sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. It's totally different. There may be affiliate ties but this is not an al Qaeda attack.

Regarding the media as a mouthpiece, please look at the point I was making with regards to the contradictory assertions made by the poster to whom I was responding.

 

[mid_gen]

I'm sure it would make the actual targets of terrorism feel a lot better knowing that no-one in the wider world saw the reality of what was happening to them.

Ridiculous argument. What would terrorists have to gain from images like that? Do they think our response is "ooh that's awful, best we stay well away and leave them to it".

 

[GrittyShaker]

The comments about him shooting first and not helping out are quite interesting.

I was involved in a terrorist incident in Egypt when I was about 12. Our tour coach was bombed, and quite a few people were very badly injured (no deaths, thankfully). I was fine, and had my disposable camera with me, but all I did was drop the camera and scream "is everyone OK?!" Stupid question, in hindsight.

I have to wonder what I would have done in the same situation today. There were plenty of people there to help the wounded best they could, and the driver - whilst quite badly tore up - was capable of limping the remains of the coach (which, somewhat amazingly, was still driveable) to the nearest hospital. I would probably immediately start getting photos of the carnage, myself.

 

[MatBin]

I've not read all of the previous posts so excuse me if I'm duplicating something that has already been said.
Ignoring the point of should he or shouldnt he, the fact is he did, take the photo.

So, is it worthy of a prize, in my view no, for me it may be sharp and grain free, making it a well exposed and sharp photo but it doesnt bring the "horror" to me. I recall years ago seeing the photo of the war in Vietnam where one soldier shoots another (prisoner) in the head at close range (actually I think it was movie footage at the time) without any remorse at all, that was and remains the most shocking thing I had ever seen. It was a poorly executed photo in terms of focus etc but as an image it rocked me to my core.

Sadly this one doesnt, it should, given its content, but its a snapshot of a dreadful scene and tbh unless its going to cause the same reaction as the one I previously mentioned I dont think it should get any prizes. There may be reasons why its a poorly taken shot but we should judge it on its merits as a stand alone piece and for me it fails. I honestly wish it pulled me up and made me think but it just doesnt, it doesnt have the hard edged shock factor of a true war photo-journalist of years gone by, so in its way it just tells a story without demanding attention or reaction and as such it drip feeds the horror into our lives and as such we become aneathitised (spelling?) by it and similar photos so we look at it and say "oh yeah a bomb went off, killed xx people, next". It fails badly for me.

The image of the little boy doubled over, presumably dead, is for me far more telling.

Matt

 

[Laudrup]

It's sectarian. Al Qaeda has a problem with the west; this is sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. It's totally different. There may be affiliate ties but this is not an al Qaeda attack.

Regarding the media as a mouthpiece, please look at the point I was making with regards to the contradictory assertions made by the poster to whom I was responding.

Al-Qaeda is also responsible for instigating sectarian violence among Muslims. Al-Qaeda is intolerant of non-Sunni branches of Islam and denounces them with excommunications called "takfir". Al-Qaeda leaders regard liberal Muslims, Shias, Sufis, Ahmadiyyas and other sects as heretics and have issued attacks on their mosques and gatherings. Examples of sectarian attacks include the Yazidi community bombings, Sadr City bombings, Ashoura Massacre and April 2007 Baghdad bombings.

The Pakistani insurgency that reportedly carried it out are very closely tied to al-Qaeda, so it isn't without the realms of possibility that they were involved.

As for glorification you did say; "fundamentalist organisations like them are not looking for glorification in the media" when in fact that is exactly one of the methods they are using. People have even been jailed here for owning and selling DVDs glorifying them which were likely to encourage people to engage in terrorist acts.

 

[Laudrup]

I've not read all of the previous posts so excuse me if I'm duplicating something that has already been said.
Ignoring the point of should he or shouldnt he, the fact is he did, take the photo.

So, is it worthy of a prize, in my view no, for me it may be sharp and grain free, making it a well exposed and sharp photo but it doesnt bring the "horror" to me. I recall years ago seeing the photo of the war in Vietnam where one soldier shoots another (prisoner) in the head at close range (actually I think it was movie footage at the time) without any remorse at all, that was and remains the most shocking thing I had ever seen. It was a poorly executed photo in terms of focus etc but as an image it rocked me to my core.

Sadly this one doesnt, it should, given its content, but its a snapshot of a dreadful scene and tbh unless its going to cause the same reaction as the one I previously mentioned I dont think it should get any prizes. There may be reasons why its a poorly taken shot but we should judge it on its merits as a stand alone piece and for me it fails. I honestly wish it pulled me up and made me think but it just doesnt, it doesnt have the hard edged shock factor of a true war photo-journalist of years gone by, so in its way it just tells a story without demanding attention or reaction and as such it drip feeds the horror into our lives and as such we become aneathitised (spelling?) by it and similar photos so we look at it and say "oh yeah a bomb went off, killed xx people, next". It fails badly for me.

The image of the little boy doubled over, presumably dead, is for me far more telling.

Matt

Your thoughts about the General Nguyen Ngoc Loan photo reminded me of seeing it like this: (graphic content warning)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...njected-colour-host-historic-photographs.html

 

[andya700]

The Pakistani insurgency that reportedly carried it out are very closely tied to al-Qaeda, so it isn't without the realms of possibility that they were involved.

As for glorification you did say; "fundamentalist organisations like them are not looking for glorification in the media" when in fact that is exactly one of the methods they are using. People have even been jailed here for owning and selling DVDs glorifying them which were likely to encourage people to engage in terrorist acts.

If you read the accounts behind the significance of this image, it tells of an attack the same day on another Shia mosque, on a very important day for Shia Moslems. There is sectarian violence in Iraq and now Afghanistan, and this is an example of that. The people responsible for this are doing it not to gain coverage in the media, but because of their fundamental opposition to the Shia faith.
Furthermore, the DVDs glorifying terrorism have one point, to try to foment radicalism amongst young (mostly Wahhabi Sunni) Moslems, and encourage them to undertake suicide bombings and the like against the West. They have nothing to do with sectarian violence.

 

[onona]

The Pakistani insurgency that reportedly carried it out are very closely tied to al-Qaeda, so it isn't without the realms of possibility that they were involved.

As for glorification you did say; "fundamentalist organisations like them are not looking for glorification in the media" when in fact that is exactly one of the methods they are using. People have even been jailed here for owning and selling DVDs glorifying them which were likely to encourage people to engage in terrorist acts.

Please read my post again. This is the second time I've asked you to. By quoting the comment out of context, you are repeatedly ignoring the point of my post, which was a response to an earlier suggestion by another user that photos like this help to perpetuate violence. They do not. Insurgency groups do not need media for propaganda as they have their own propaganda that's distributed along clandestine lines. The sort of propaganda used by fundamentalists that "glorifies" suicide bombings does not simply consist of images like this - if they did, then owning a copy of this photo would be, as you claim, an arrestable offense.

Furthermore, sectarian violence is motivated by entirely different criteria to al Qaeda's attacks in the west. But that's really besides the point.

 

[Laudrup]

If you read the accounts behind the significance of this image, it tells of an attack the same day on another Shia mosque, on a very important day for Shia Moslems. There is sectarian violence in Iraq and now Afghanistan, and this is an example of that. The people responsible for this are doing it not to gain coverage in the media, but because of their fundamental opposition to the Shia faith.
Furthermore, the DVDs glorifying terrorism have one point, to try to foment radicalism amongst young (mostly Wahhabi Sunni) Moslems, and encourage them to undertake suicide bombings and the like against the West. They have nothing to do with sectarian violence.

The two are not mutually exclusive. As for glorifying sectarian violence you had people like al-Zarqawi declaring an all out war on Shiites. It's not as if al-Qaeda are running a direct mail campaign of recruitment. Videos, photos and audiotapes on extremist websites will all be used to brainwash and glorify these thugs.

 

[Laudrup]

Please read my post again. This is the second time I've asked you to. By quoting the comment out of context, you are repeatedly ignoring the point of my post, which was a response to an earlier suggestion by another user that photos like this help to perpetuate violence. They do not. Insurgency groups do not need media for propaganda as they have their own propaganda that's distributed along clandestine lines. The sort of propaganda used by fundamentalists that "glorifies" suicide bombings does not simply consist of images like this - if they did, then owning a copy of this photo would be, as you claim, an arrestable offense.

Furthermore, sectarian violence is motivated by entirely different criteria to al Qaeda's attacks in the west. But that's really besides the point.

They do perpetuate the violence though, that's the byproduct of these photos, it's an advert for al-Qaeda in the same way Abu Ghraib was. It's showing people who are interested look what we can do. It's not the photographers fault for taking the picture, the interpretation is up to the individial. This Pulitzer photo can be spun positively for people sympathetic to al-Qaeda that more of the 'unbelievers' are dead or to the vast majority it can be seen as a horrific crime.

As for sectarian violence I wouldn't split hairs about al-Qaeda's 'criteria' for their latest atrocity.

 

[onona]

I absolutely and totally and utterly disagree with you, so there's no point in going back and forth on this one any more as we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Although you do appear to be mistaking Abu Ghraib for something else - Abu Ghraib was an atrocity by the west, so I fail to see how that was an advert for al Qaeda, saying "look what we can do".

 

[DTB]

My opinion - I can't comment on how good or bad this image is from a technical point of view because I don't have the knowledge. In terms of content though, this image shows me a girl who's world has been destroyed around her. The destruction of her physical world has caused the destruction of her emotional world and it is the latter which is most disturbing and hits at my own emotions. It is the effect of one on the other which is so powerful; the consequence of action. Warring is a terrible thing and this shows why (although I'm sure there are lots of other images which do the same).

 

[Laudrup]

The perpetuation of violence is exactly what these photos will be used for though, whether you like it or not. That is a recruiting poster for the next band of zealots in the same way Abu Ghraib was for those insurgent zealots. That isn't the photographers fault, he can only document a moment in time.

Taking this back on topic somewhat, it is a powerful photo, but did it make any UK newspapers?

 

[joescrivens]

To me it appears like the award has simply been given for being in the right place at the right time (or maybe wrong place, wrong time). Anyone could have replicated the exact same photo without any skill, or knowledge, you just had to be standing where the explosion happened and had to have a recording device on you.

For that reason I don't think it should win any awards. Yes the award is for journalism but there should be some skill to the actual taking of the photo for it to be considered for an award.

If my dad were standing right there at the same time he could have taken the exact same shot - would he have then been given the pulitzer prize?

 

[Laudrup]

You make your own luck in life, so he was out on a dangerous day in a dangerous part of the world and got the opportunity to take a memorable photo. Yes anyone could have take it, but only he took it so for that he deserves the credit.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Anyone could have replicated the exact same photo without any skill, or knowledge, you just had to be standing where the explosion happened and had to have a recording device on you.

That's a highly moot point. No two people ever take exactly the same photo in the same situation. No two photogaphs are ever exactly alike.

Would anyone else have got the moment when the girl's stance and expression echoed that of the boy with the handgrenade in the famous Arbus photograph?

 

[joescrivens]

You make your own luck in life, so he was out on a dangerous day in a dangerous part of the world and got the opportunity to take a memorable photo. Yes anyone could have take it, but only he took it so for that he deserves the credit.

I disagree, journalism should be more than just being in the right place at the right time. Journalists have skill too. That is not shown in this image.

 

[big soft moose]

For a start, this wasn't an al Qaeda attack. Please actually read about the photo before arguing about it.

Which is why I said AQ etc I was using it as short hand for violent fundamentalist orgainsations motivated by extremist islam (also the article doesnt say who was responsible so how do you know AQ weren't involved - they have predominantly Sunni backing and are active in the area so could well have been involved )

secondly, al Qaeda and other violent , fundamentalist organisations like them are not looking for glorification in the media. Their actions speak louder than any photo could.

Really ? and how do they do that ? , how does anyone in the west or indeed anywhere outside the imediate vicinity know about their actions ? - The answer of course is because they are reported in the media using photos like this QED

And lastly, you're no longer making sense. Earlier, you asserted that images like this could help perpetuate violets acts whereas now you're saying they spread fear. That's something totally different. Surely spreading fear is in many ways the opposite of perpetuating violence?

No - exactly the same thing - they perpetuate violent acts because those who perpetrate them use the media to spread fear , and when pictures like this are published and sensationalised in the press the terrorists are given the "oxygen of publicity" and thus encouraged to carry out more attrocities assured as they are of more help from the media in spreading their violent message.

Which was my core point , media coverage of unacceptable violence only helps prevent reoccurence of such violence when those responsible for the violence are subject to the opinion of those who are horrified by the pictures - so The napalmed girl, the images of the aftermath of My Lai , the images from abu gharib etc , all served that purpose. But when the perpetrators are a violent extremist organisation who glory in the exposure, the media coverage has the opposite effect.

As stated clearly before, the Pulitzer Prize is a JOURNALISM award. Are you seriously suggesting that when faced with such horror, photographers should haul out their tripods and start putting some thought into composition? Really? It's the immediacy of the images that makes it so powerful.

I find it pretty astounding that people don't seem to know what the Pulitzer Prize is.

And I find it astounding that you have the nerve to suggest that those who disagree with you are ignorant enough not to know what the pulitzer prize is.

I'm well aware that its an award for journalism - but part of the talent of photojournalisim is to take well composed/exposed etc shots with powerful messages in difficult circumstances - Shots like the napalmed girl , or the McCuilin shot of the shell shocked marine at hue managed that - the shot in the OP is just a snap that could have been taken by anyone who happened to be in the right place with a camera, which isnt what photojournalism is suposed to be about.

 

[simonblue]

I think we're all going to have disagreed,or Adgreed on this photos,and the circumstance that photo was taken under.

 

[joescrivens]

And I find it astounding that you have the nerve to suggest that those who disagree with you are ignorant enough not to know what the pulitzer prize is.

I'm well aware that its an award for journalism - but part of the talent of photojournalisim is to take well composed/exposed etc shots with powerful messages in difficult circumstances - Shots like the napalmed girl , or the McCuilin shot of the shell shocked marine at hue managed that - the shot in the OP is just a snap that could have been taken by anyone who happened to be in the right place with a camera, which isnt what photojournalism is suposed to be about.

Yes, I agree with this exactly. Prizes cant just be given out for anyone who was in the right place at the right time and happened to have a piece of recording equipment. It should be given for showing their skill as a photojournalist.

 

[Laudrup]

I disagree, journalism should be more than just being in the right place at the right time. Journalists have skill too. That is not shown in this image.

A photographer is dealing in the hundredths of a second to get an image like that, wounded too and probably shocked I think it takes skill and composure to record that. Some people would have gone to pieces or ran to help and missed the shot.

 

[big soft moose]

if it was that fleeting it couldnt be intentional and would be the result of running off a burst and seeing what you've got later - but in fact the little girl was probably screaming for some time so it wouldnt have been that fleeting at all.

Its true that he did well to get the image while wounded himself - but thats not really grounds for getting a pulitzer - its supposed to be an award for great photojournalism - not for mediocre shots taken through great determination.

 

[onona]

Christ, I hate long quotey posts, but here goes...

Which is why I said AQ etc I was using it as short hand for violent fundamentalist orgainsations motivated by extremist islam (also the article doesnt say who was responsible so how do you know AQ weren't involved - they have predominantly Sunni backing and are active in the area so could well have been involved )

This was a Sunni/Shiite incident. AQ did not necessarily play a part in it, and considering where it took place, it's actually quite unlikely that they did. They may have been loosely affiliated with a group involved but primarily attacks like these are not their doing.

But fair point on the etc.

Really ? and how do they do that ? , how does anyone in the west or indeed anywhere outside the imediate vicinity know about their actions ? - The answer of course is because they are reported in the media using photos like this QED

But that's neither glorifying nor perpetuating the violence, as that's not how it's spun in the west.

No - exactly the same thing - they perpetuate violent acts because those who perpetrate them use the media to spread fear , and when pictures like this are published and sensationalised in the press the terrorists are given the "oxygen of publicity" and thus encouraged to carry out more attrocities assured as they are of more help from the media in spreading their violent message.

Now you're saying it's helping to spread a "violent message". This, again, is fundamentally different to your earlier suggestion that photos perpetuate violence.

Which was my core point , media coverage of unacceptable violence only helps prevent reoccurence of such violence when those responsible for the violence are subject to the opinion of those who are horrified by the pictures - so The napalmed girl, the images of the aftermath of My Lai , the images from abu gharib etc , all served that purpose. But when the perpetrators are a violent extremist organisation who glory in the exposure, the media coverage has the opposite effect.

Again, this depends on the spin, and in the west, since the spin is not one of glorification, your point is irrelevant. The images would only glorify the act if used in an extremist propaganda video, but that's not what you're saying here.

And I find it astounding that you have the nerve to suggest that those who disagree with you are ignorant enough not to know what the pulitzer prize is.

Well, when you quibble about composition or bring gear snobbery into the equation, then you really well and truly are missing the point of the Pulitzer Prize.

I'm well aware that its an award for journalism - but part of the talent of photojournalisim is to take well composed/exposed etc shots with powerful messages in difficult circumstances - Shots like the napalmed girl , or the McCuilin shot of the shell shocked marine at hue managed that -

Please explain why those images are superior, artistically, to this. Because frankly I don't think they are. The Trang Bang image and others are remembered and were rewarded not for their artistic elements but for their journalistic value in documenting the event they captured.

the shot in the OP is just a snap that could have been taken by anyone who happened to be in the right place with a camera, which isnt what photojournalism is suposed to be about.

What? Of course that's what it's about; or, at least, that's a huge part of it. It's about conveying a news story through images. If there weren't people in the right place at the right time, we'd have no immediate, at-the-scene photo journalism at all.

 

[simonblue]

Yes, I agree with this exactly. Prizes cant just be given out for anyone who was in the right place at the right time and happened to have a piece of recording equipment. It should be given for showing their skill as a photojournalist.

If you have a look at the history of the Pluitzer Prize,it alway has been that way

 

[onona]

If you have a look at the history of the Pluitzer Prize,it alway has been that way

Exactly. That's why I get the impression that many here are unfamiliar with the award. If you're familiar with past recipients, then this latest one should really come as no surprise.

 

[joescrivens]

If you have a look at the history of the Pluitzer Prize,it alway has been that way

Exactly. That's why I get the impression that many here are unfamiliar with the award. If you're familiar with past recipients, then this latest one should really come as no surprise.

who said it was a surprise?

Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it's right. Imagine what the world would be like if things weren't changed just because "it's always been that way"

 

[Laudrup]

if it was that fleeting it couldnt be intentional and would be the result of running off a burst and seeing what you've got later - but in fact the little girl was probably screaming for some time so it wouldnt have been that fleeting at all.

Its true that he did well to get the image while wounded himself - but thats not really grounds for getting a pulitzer - its supposed to be an award for great photojournalism - not for mediocre shots taken through great determination.

It isn't a mediocre shot though. He had finite time before the place was swamped with relatives or medical staff, but he said he was drawn to the girl before the bomb due to her dress. Maybe right time right place for the shot, but he showed good instincts and courage to continue.

 

[Laudrup]

Exactly. That's why I get the impression that many here are unfamiliar with the award. If you're familiar with past recipients, then this latest one should really come as no surprise.

Yes we can all see the past awards, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with a prize for it.