What kind of scumsucking jackasses are the types to award those who collaborate with terrorists? Why the Pulitzer Board… They have announced that the Asshat Propaganda shall get the Pulitzer for 20 photo’s. What do those 20 photo’s depict? From Jawa:
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 inflammation. 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 and here] 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.
This is just another reason why this organization should be ignored. One of the pictures is the one where some reporters just “happened” to be at the site of an execution.
Give me a break. The asshole who photographed this picture was tipped off beforehand and did nothing about it so he could get his story. But hey, give them all a Pulitzer. Belmont Club has posts about that photo here, here and here. Powerline wrote a bit about it also:
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. Belmont Club responded to the Salon defense here, in a post we linked to a day or two ago.
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.
How do these moonbats live with themselves? They can take this Pulitzer and shove it up their ass.
Check out Cranky Neocon, Decision 08, Vince Aut Morire, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Backcountry Conservative, In The Bullpen, and Michelle Malkin for more.
UPDATE – 4/5/05 1030HRS
Riding Sun has a post up with a breakdown of the photos:
? 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
See author page
