Where's the complete story when they only dwell on the negativity? Can't a powerful picture be uplifting instead of derogatory in nature? There is another side to this war. It's been more relevant than the negative aspects for months now.

Seeing how you are the Pulitzer Prize subject matter expert, what's the criteria for the award? From what I understand it's all "Breaking news photography." Wouldn't a picture of a newly opened classroom full of children being taught world history be more powerful? Even something like that would qualify as "breaking news" the second it happened.

 

Obviously, if you read what I wrote, you would easily infer that I am not 'inside' as I put it- meaning I had not been in the military. So I guess, according to your two mutually exclusive, yet all encompassing options, I'm only left with liking to think I know what I'm talking about. [I'm not quite sure what part of my post elicited this weak, unsubstantiated jab- help me out]

And as for having a life, where do you fall in that category? After all, you are responding to a post not even directed at you, defending somebody else on an online political forum. And if he had time to drag out and post that pointless pic, I think he could have at least acknoledged my point- that seems to be tough to do for those who apparently see me as a mindless liberal activist... which may be correct in wsome cases, but I'm more reasonable than you might think.

 

This particular series may seem to 'dwell on the negativity' to you, but it seems you were expecting that to begin with. I think it just happened that the series of pics which held the most impact also did not happen to portray the US military in a positive light. They could have chosen a series of pics from the eledction/rebuild effort, and I would [hopefully ] assume that poarticular series wouldn't include any charred, rotting infant corpses. I'm guessing they group the pics together according to the kind of emotions they elicit. So this might explain the said 'bias' in these pics. Like it or not, the anti-war effort and anti-american sentiment was a HUGE deal in the news. This stuff all already happened. I really don't think this selection creates anti-us sentiment as much as you guys seem to be worried about. If Iraq continues to turn out well, it's existence and influence will speak for itself.

More uplifting, yes. More powerful, no. You need to consider the impact and the weight of the emotion that the pictures evoke. I think this series was a good choice, because it elicits different emotions from different people, and emphasizes the controversy (which should not be hidden) that surrounded this war from the beginning. A picture of a classroom, IMO, would not go with these pictures, and belong in a different series altogether. You might see the horrific pics as devisive, trying to paint the US as bad, but I see them as a depiction of the ugliest part of war.

 

How is the picture of the corpsmen holding the child not more powerful than half those pictures? This is what i'm trying to say. I have about ten more in my photobucket account that are just as powerful.

Well if it's all about controversy then I’m impressed. Shouldn't be that way though seeing how there's a lot more to a good breaking story. I'd much rather have the picture of the sympathetic corpsmen holding the child over insurgents taking fire in the streets. They are now considered gangsters in Iraq, not the freedom fighters a lot of Americans once knew.

Am I supposed to feel sorry that one guy got hit by a sniper while commingling with an armed group? If it's all about the controversy in reporting then it just shows you how shallow and one-sided the media truly is. The Pulitzer prize holds about as much water as the Source awards and Latin Grammy’s IMHO.


EDIT: Wanted to add this pciture because I thought it was uplifting. It is , afterall, part of the same war...





It is a recent picture but this volunteer solider is dancing because of Jalal Talabani getting elected. I would think a similar photo of a woman putting a ballot into a ballot box would be much more powerful than half those photos.

I think that the liberal ****stick jurors are putting in their .02 as a last attempt to cling to this idea.

 

Your kidding that makes the photo even better.......welcome to my new wallpaper. I have to e-mail this to my wife now.

 

Point 1: Translation in case you were interested; 1st Platoon, Alpha Company, 3rd Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment. (I actually served in the same company but in 1st platoon.)

As far for repsonding to you post, I think any comments from myself would just be-reiterating what Salty has stated in this thread. For I agree with him whole heartedly.

 

For inquiring minds, here are the jurors who awarded the Breaking News Photography Pulitzer to the AP and some contact info:

-Denis Finley, managing editor, The Virginian-Pilot, Norfolk, VA (Chair); denis.finley@pilotonline.com

-J. Ross Baughman, director of photography, The Washington Times; j_ross_baughman@hotmail.com

-Eric Newton, director of journalism initiatives, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Miami, FL

-Larry Nylund, deputy managing editor, presentation, The Journal News, White Plains, NY

-Janet Reeves, director of photography, Rocky Mountain News, Denver, Colorado

 

I recognize the younger looking guy (actually in his late 20's) looking towards his feet and the guy in the shades. Not going to mention names but they certainly were a smartass crew. The bird does not surprise me coming from those guys.

 

They're not more powerful because you don't appreciate the value of Iraqi freedom and life. If your main focus was on the Iraqi people, I don't see how you could possibly miss the power of post-Saddam photos...people are dancing in the street, waiving their fingers in the air on election day, and doing things that they would've been skinned alive for doing under Saddam.

That's powerful.

 

Because you gave him 3 hours to respond to your post and then proceeded to make an assumption. Not everybody subscribes to threads in forums. You were quick to make the assumption that he was in a corner licking his wounds when in reality there are some of us who go a few days without checking our posts.

 

Gimme a break, man. He posted that pic AFTER my post, INSTEAD of responding. Nobody here seems to be able to acknowledge any of the points I've made, so my only way of telling if people understand is if they don't try to respond.

Also, why drag out this pointless, unrelated bickering, when you were'nt involved in the first place? How about responding to the subject of the thread? Or any of the relevant arguments made?

 

B.S.! you talk about how the world was against us in regards to Iraq and I think that is irrelevant to the pulitzer prize. If you feel my posts are not timely enough for you too F'n bad. Work and Family take precedence over you and some GD internet forum. Your inablity to even see an anti-American bias shows you have no concept of the history of pulitzer prizes for photos or for the so called journalists who took them. Your failure to address that the photographer in one of those "award" winning photos may be an accomplice to murder. Yet you ask or even demand a response from me to a post which does nothing more than skate around the issue at hand? Rrrriiiight, you can keep waiting on that response until you are blue in the face.

 

Yeah, I despise life, happiness, and all efforts to create and maintain it. Especially for those camel jockeys over there. Why do they deserve freedom?

Do you really need to make this ignorant, outrageous assumption to make your point? Why should the focus be on the Iraqi people? Yeah, the military's focus should be for the good of the Iraqi people, but in this case, they were'nt selecting the most benevelent pics - they were chosing those which held the most impact. Sure, the AP could have (and probably did) compile a series of pics, similiar to the one of the soldier holding the iraqi baby posted before. And this set could have also been selected. The 'positive' pics also evoke quite a bit of emotion, but more so for those who are in or have been involved with the US armed forces, or for those who strongly supported the war, or were directly affected by the outcome. Its not about appreciating the value of life and happiness, it's just a different point of view. Please try to understand. I do think the 'positive' ones are very powerful. But the series selected is more universally powerful, and controversial at the same time. Different people may feel differently when they look at the horrific ones. You cant deny that they make you think, regardless of how.

 

fine and dandy. Then why as you say if there are powerful pictures that provoke emotions from both points of view does this statistic still hold true?
* US forces looking heroic: 0
* US forces helping Iraqi civillians: 0
* Iraqis expressing support for US forces: 0
* Iraqis expressing opposition to insurgents: 0

 

thanks for the warning...
That wasn't my main point, but, the pulitzer is an international, world-wide prize, isn't it? I may be wrong...

you took the time to post that pic, but gave up on the discussion, can't you see how that might frustrate me?
I dpn't have much knowledge about the history, certainly not. But I don't see the connection to my apparent inability to see anti-american bias. Help me out here.
Wow. How is he more of an accomplice than our reporters? They may not have as conventional as an army, but why does that make them 'murderers' more than our own army? [I'm assuming you're referring to the 'mortarmen in hammerpants' shot]

You call it skating because you don't like my opinion... very weak. And don't worry, I'm not holding my breath