svxr8dr

iTrader: (1)

The Pulitzer Prize has been "Awarded to the Associated Press Staff for its stunning series of photographs of bloody yearlong combat inside Iraqi cities."

What photographs won for Breaking News Photography?

The 20 photographs can be found here. http://pulitzer.org/

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.

Included in the 5 photos are 1 photo taken by Bilal Hussein
(more background on Bilal Hussein here: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/053982.php and here: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/054904.php ) of terrorist forces firing at the U.S. in Fallujah. Another photo
identified as taken by a 'stringer' shows terrorists murdering an Iraqi election worker. Both of these photos are by individuals who saw Geneva Convention crimes and did nothing to stop them. Both photos indicate also that the individuals who took them had prior knowledge to the crimes being committed.

Of the remaining 15 photos, 2 show prisoners receiving harsh treatment by U.S. forces [here and here ]. One more shows a dead child identified as being killed by the U.S. Another photo, taken by Khalid Mohammed, shows the residents of Fallujah rejoicing as they hang the charred bodies of dead American civilians on a bridge. The famous photo that caused Kos to cry 'screw them.' The family of an alleged Abu Ghraib victim is also shown mourning. Displaced children from the Fallujah conflict are also shown
, the exact story Giuliana Sgrena was working on when she was taken hostage.

Only these two photos are positive. One shows the humanity of soldiers on patrol. The other one shows soldiers praying for a fallen comrade. But even the last one might be interpreted as defeatist.

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.

Cliff Notes:
*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

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Wow.

There's no doubt that there's a strong negative bias here. There's tons of heartfelt photos wit US Troops in them. Some of them are amazing photos. They could have taken photos of them digging-up the recently found mass graves too.

Two photos here strike me as unbelievable. I'll explain at lunch.

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

[I'll take the other side, as always...- always the skeptic]

...I guess about as fair and balanced as the network that coined that term... It isn't these people's jobs to make us look good, as it is for others, these things did happen- they're not made up. And I find it funny you, yourself, are doing anything you can to see how a pic might be geared to make us look bad. It sounds like you had a negative predisposition toward global media, and went out to prove your point that you already knew was true. These pictures represent the brutality and the range of emotions involved with war. There is no need to go on the defensive as you are, trying to prevent anyone from being misled by these atrocious photos. To only show the good ones would be misleading, and would not have near the impact as showing both sides of the conflict. I see your point that they shouldn't reward those who worked with terrorists, but they were simply journalists, doing their job just like Geraldo.

I guess most importantly, awarding the phtographer of a photo isn't at all condoning or encouraging the subject of his photo. Its all about capturing emotion and history.

Also, the pulitzer people selected this series of 20 photos, which were taken during the year of intense combat in several cities... not of the election/ rebuilding effort which has finally taken root recently... So I guess you can blame the pulitzer peeps for their bias... cause I wouldn't doubt the AP photog's have taken plenty of pictures of the rebuild effort- they just don't carry the same emotion or have near the impact as the ones selected.

There is plenty of liberal bias in the media, sure, but I don't think this is much of a reflection. I don't see it as devisive or schemey as you guys might, perhaps cause I don't have that predisposition toward the media that you guys seem to.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Reporter may know how to take pictures but they certainly know nothing about half of their pictures and combat tactics being practiced in the pictures.

Others see these two photos together and slam their fists in anger to the United States. Why not? It's what a lot of these media outlets want.

I see these pictures together and think of negligence beyond what any untrained eye can possibly fathom.

Let's consider the machine gunner first.

It's hard enough shooting a hog on a tripod with a seasoned gunner on the trigger and an experienced assistant gunner calling the shots. I'd give a trained gunner my retirement account if they could consistently hit a 4' diameter circle at 300+ meters. I'm not talking about shooting the weapon from the hip as our insurgents obviously practice. I'm talking about the machine gun being locked down into a M122 steel tripod with MOA traversing and elevation adjustment ***** that's dug into ground.

This machine gunner is shooting at a 25-30 degree angle while in a squatting position with a rifle that's white-hot to the touch. So ignorant as to what he's doing that he'd probably drop the weapon as a result of a run-away gun (gun gets so hat it cooks-off the entire belt of ammo).


Know let's consider the hand and eyeball method being used by the mortar men in M.C. hammer pants.

Anyone want to take a stab at effective mortar practice? For starters it takes eyes on the objective, communication with the eyes on the objective, precise target Grid locations/identification, a well trained mortar fire controller and a ****ing BASEPLATE for crying out loud! Not the tip of your boot and a prayer to Allah. All this still does not guarantee 100% shot placement.


After all this is been said go ahead and look at this picture again:



Anybody want to reconsider the possibilities for other dead children?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Of course.

There's a couple photos that show the humane side of the troops and the unity between them and the Iraqis. I will admit that.

But have you looked at all he photos there? There's no possible way you can say the photos don't portray a strong anti-American bias.

They show children that have been killed by US soldiers, NOT careless Insurgents. They show Iraqi men huddled together in mourning. They show insurgents being watched over by American Soldiers like helpless caged rats. They show weak kneed women weeping in the streets and an insurgent being carried off by an American Solider as if he's the victim of a 1960's war protest on U.S. soil.

Damn near every photo makes them out to be the victim of oppression.


Here's the other dead child photo.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

I really think you're wrong on this one Salty. There's only ONE picture in the whole 20 that show and say that an American killed anyone (one of the two with kids...). It should be noted that the other dead child was killed by a carbomb (Baghdad - The mother of Samah Hussein grieves over the body at a Baghdad morgue. The boy was among 12 people reportedly killed by a suicide car bombing outside the U.S. military's Camp Cuervo. (Photo by Samir Mizban, June 13, 2004.) ). In fact, most of the pictures of dead people say, in the captions, that they died of car bombs. So how is that 'anti-American'. All of the captions sound neutral to me, and most of them show ineptitude or cruelty on the part of the insurgents. That sounds pro-American to me. Even the one showing a prisoner being yelled at explains that that prisoner had been fighting with other prisoners. Maybe you didn't read the captions, Salty? Or if you did...maybe you should put aside your opinions about the media in general...I don't see any anti-American sentiment in these pictures.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Thanks for clearing up that caption. It's an anti-American sentiment based on the fact that there's not one significantly positive photo shown.

svxr8dr was right. Where are the positive photos at? Where are the photos showing the less-negative side to the war? I know that sounds like an oxymoron but it isn't in the slightest. There's a lot of worthy photos that exist that meet this criteria. Like this one:



There's many, many more photos such as this with Iraqi civilians praising Americans and children playing soccer with troops etc.

svxr8dr

iTrader: (1)

Joe Rosenthal's pic from 1945 would never have made the cut with these people

svxr8dr

iTrader: (1)

How about a family reunion pic of people released after Saddam was toppled? Hell do a google image search of American's in Iraq, or American soldier's in Iraq and tell me how many photos you see that portray the soldiers in a positive manner.

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

Thank you... I shouldn't even try explaining things anymore... I have a feeling there is a predispostion held by those responding to my posts, one far worse than that held toward the media. I should have thought of that when I was writing that last post... stupid me...

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

Would this at all represent the horror and brutality of the yearlong in-city combat? This series of pics evokes certain emotions- I don't see them as anti-american as much as anti-war in general. Eveyone is aware of our goodwilling intentions- you really think people (with accress to AP photos and other meda) might somehow think that we were there to kill children and bully people around? This series of pics depict the ugly side of war- No, it probably isn't good for our image, but I don't think it does much to rile up anti-american sentiment, nor was it meant to.

I think you guys forget that most of the world was against our unilateral efforts
and our occupation of Iraq. Not everyone is trying to paint a rosy picture about how things are going. No matter how ugly, i think the complete story should be seen. This series of pics depicted probably the ugliest series of steps we had to take to get to where we are now. I'll give Bush and our forces lots of credit- they stood up to the world's opinion, tidied up somewhat of a mess, and aren't stopping till the job is done.

svxr8dr

iTrader: (1)

My nomination

Salty

iTrader: (14)

haha that's 3rd plt Aco 3/325, svxr8dr.

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

I'm starting to think all of the acronyms, abbreviations, designations, and sub-designations you ex-military folks use are all made up and mean nothing- just a huge inside joke to throw off us who aren't 'inside'... j/k

And Svx, I assume your lack of reply means you took heed to my point... or you just felt like posting a random, semi-humerous, unrelated pic. Now who taught you that method of straying attention away from a point made? ...Salty???

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

Maybe he actually has a life??? ????

Were you in the military? Or do you just like to think you know what you're talking about?