Let's at least start with the more interesting aspect of the AP photog that may be an accomplice to murder. (I'm at work so time is limited today)
photo in question:

image of terrorists executing of Iraqi election workers on Haifa Street in Baghdad
troubling questions raised in December 2004 about how exactly the AP photographer arrived at the scene.
Links:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004...s-article.html
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004...-of-iraqi.html
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004...hat-story.html
Also wondering at the time about the AP's relationship with the pictured terrorists and the related media ethics issues/disclosure obligations involved were Power Line and Roger L. Simon
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archiv...s_of_propa.php
and here
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archiv...ing_the_wa.php
See Joe Katzman for background:
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006061.php
A key post from John Hinderaker on Dec. 25 sums up the outrage and highlights the AP's admission that its photographer was "tipped off" and had a relationship with the terrorists:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009026.php

The issue relates to the shocking photo, recently published by the AP, showing three terrorists in the act of murdering two Iraqi election workers on a street during daylight. The photographer was obviously within a few yards of the scene of the murder, which raises obvious questions, such as 1) what was the photographer doing there; did he have advance knowledge of the crime, or was he even accompanying the terrorists? and 2) why did the photographer apparently have no fear of the terrorists, or conversely, why were the terrorists evidently unconcerned about being photographed in the commission of a murder?...
Salon printed a defense of the AP (and an attack on conservative bloggers) that included this anonymous comment from an AP spokesman:

A source at the Associated Press knowledgeable about the events covered in Baghdad on Sunday told Salon that accusations that the photographer was aware of the militants' plans are "ridiculous." The photographer, whose identity the AP is withholding due to safety concerns, was likely "tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street," said the AP source, who was not at liberty to comment by name. But the photographer "definitely would not have had foreknowledge" of a violent event like an execution, the source said.

So the AP admitted that its photographer was "tipped off" by the terrorists. The only quibble asserted by the AP was that the photographer expected only a "demonstration," not a murder. So the terrorists wanted to be photographed carrying out the murder, to sow more terror in Iraq and to demoralize American voters. That's why they tipped off the photographer, and that's why they dragged the two election workers from their car, so they could be shot in front of the AP's obliging camera. And the AP was happy to cooperate with the terrorists in all respects. We'd like to ask some more questions of the photographer, of course, but that's impossible since the AP won't identify him because of "safety concerns." Really? Who would endanger his safety? The terrorists? They could have shot him on Sunday if they were unhappy about having their picture taken. But they weren't, which is why they "tipped off" the photographer...

Now there's more: Jim Romanesko got an email from another AP spokesman, this time Jack Stokes, the AP's director of media relations. Here it is:

Several brave Iraqi photographers work for The Associated Press in places that only Iraqis can cover. Many are covering the communities they live in where family and tribal relations give them access that would not be available to Western photographers, or even Iraqi photographers who are not from the area.

Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. It's important to note, though, that the photographers are not "embedded" with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures.

That makes the admission pretty well complete, I think. The AP is using photographers who have relationships with the terrorists; this is for the purpose of helping to tell the terrorists' "stories." The photographers don't have to swear allegiance to the terrorists--gosh, that's reassuring--but they have "family and tribal relations" with them. And they aren't embedded--I'm not sure I believe that--but they don't need to be either, since the terrorists tip them off when they are about to commit an act that they want filmed.

 

But I guess your right. There is no way the Pulizter panel could have an agenda, It's not like the Peabody award people do.
CBS takes the Peabody Award for Most Effective Enemy Propaganda:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...peabody_awards
NEW YORK - CBS News won a Peabody Award on Thursday for its report on abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, a story anchored by Dan Rather and produced by Mary Mapes, who was later fired by CBS for her role in the story about President Bush’s military service. ...

The George Foster Peabody awards, for broadcasting excellence in both news and entertainment, are given by the University of Georgia. Thirty-two awards will be handed out at the ceremony May 16.

The controversy over CBS’s discredited story about Bush’s National Guard service played no part in the judges’ determination that the Abu Ghraib report on “60 Minutes II” deserved honor, said Horace Newcomb, Peabody Awards director.

“We feel that this story stood on its own merit,” Newcomb said. “It was really an important moment in television this year.”




Sure. Let’s just forget that the same people were caught in a monumental lie, attempting to tilt a presidential election, and reward for them for what they did get right—handing the enemy the biggest propaganda windfall they could possibly have asked for, and then hysterically overhyping the story to the point of sheer absurdity. Excellent work, CBS.

 

More on a Pulitzer photo juror and how it relates to the original photo:

The most remarkable member of the judging committee has got to be J. Ross Baughman who won the Pulitzer Prize for the AP in 1978. Baughman won the prize by accompanying the Selous Scouts, the counter insurgency force in Rhodesia that was fighting the terrorists headed by Robert Mugabe.

Baughman successfully made photos of the Scouts allegedly committing atrocities on the insurgents. Baughman had represented himself as one of the troops, wearing their garb, carrying weapons and apparently engaging in their
fights...It raised ethical questions at the time which dog Baughman to this day. It was clear that Baughman did not inform the Scouts of his intentions, or he'd never have had the opportunity.

Below is a photo of Baughman in his full Scout regalia, taken from the Newseum Photojournalist of the Month feature on Baughman. Baughman now works for the Washington Times.

Baughman discussed his work with the Scouts with Deni Elliot in a 1990 piece that is archived here:
http://www.journalism.indiana.edu/ga...cs/aslife.html
and commented on by the past president of the National Press Photographers Association here:
http://www.journalism.indiana.edu/ga...cs/letter.html

This is from Elliot's piece:

Dressed like the soldiers so that he could be inconspicuous, Baughman photographed the 25-man unit while they burned down homes and tortured men, women and children. His photos won a Pulitzer Prize. His choice not to intervene won him international disfavor.

Baughman says that he could have stopped some of the atrocities, if he had been so inclined. "I would have been able to make the soldiers feel inhibited. I could have said, 'Gee, fellows, do you think this is necessary?'"

Or he could have protected the victims. "It would have been possible for me to poke my head into the next hut and shoo the people out the back, giving them a few extra seconds," Baughman said.

But he knew that style of reporting would have offered no more than what people already knew. It's no surprise that military units use threats to achieve their ends. "If you're going to find out if they're really going to pull the trigger, you have to wait," Baughman said.

On a side not regarding other pulitzer photo jurors you will see, for instance, that the President of the Associated Press Photo Managers, Larry Nylund of the Journal News, is one of the judges. You will see that both Denis Finley, an editor at the Virginia Pilot, and Janet Reeves have been awarded prizes at the same venues for their respective papers. It is a clubby world.