This year, the prize went to the Associated Press staff for, as the Pulitzer organization’s site says, “its stunning series of photographs of bloody yearlong combat inside Iraqi cities.”
I looked at the twenty photographs and broke them into groups on the basis of content. Here are my results:
- U.S. troops injured, dead, or mourning: 3
(2, 3, 11)- Iraqi civilians 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 civilians: 0
- Iraqis expressing support for US forces: 0
- Iraqis expressing opposition to insurgents: 0
Not only do the twenty photos consistently portray the American invasion and occupation of Iraq as an unmitigated disaster, but, as Michelle Malkin notes, at least one of them (number 20, depicting the insurgents’ shocking execution of Iraqi election workers) has been exposed (by Powerline, Belmont Club, and others) as the result of at least some degree of coordination between the AP photographer and the insurgents themselves. –“GaijinBiker” — Analyzing the AP’s Pulitzer-winning photos (Riding Sun)
The conspiracy theories surrounding photo 20 (a picture taken during the execution of election workers) are a bit overblown, but the assessment of the ideological content of these photos is thought-provoking.
Of course, it’s a truism of journalism that the most unusual and striking events get the biggest play. It’s not news if a dog wags its tail, for example, but it is news if a dog attacks a toddler.
Sue, I’ll be in my office today until 4pm, and would be happy to meet with you. I may be out running errands for a few minutes at a time…
Mike, I see your point…
Dennis, GB — I understand that GB is complaining about the “negative” representation of US troops. My point is that GB’s post is a cliché, an embodiment of the rhetorical commonplace so frequently mouthed by Michelle Malkin, Powerline, and others: “Look at the liberal media and how they’re badmouthing our troops.” As such, I found it deeply disrespectful of the folks with whom I served, and in terms of rhetorical ethos, to have it come from someone in a position of safety and comfort (GB, Michelle Malkin, Powerline) only heightens that disrespect. In wanting “positive” images, GB seeks to sanitize war, to trade the depiction of war embodied in the Grant Memorial for the depiction embodied in the Iwo Jima memorial. He wants cartoon superheroes with capes all a-flutter in the wind — when, actually, the depictions of the AP are accurate (not inherently positive or negative) representations of the material, embodied, day-to-day struggles of soldiers at war. GB, and Michelle Malkin and Powerline, do not seek accuracy: rather, they would cover up and make bland and tidy the sacrifices and difficulties of war in service of a flag-waving we’re-number-one ideology. Note GB’s worry that the AP photographs of soldiers at war might “undermine public support for the military”: this is an interest not in accuracy of representation, but in the ideological manufacture of truth to serve a political end. Do we want “positive” images of war? “Positive” images of the 1,500 American dead? “Positive” images of the 280,000 Americans killed in Vietnam? “Positive” images of the 54,000 Americans killed in Korea? To what end: that we might engage in a blithe and cheerful jingoism, happily forgetting — from our safe spaces — the terrors faced by those who serve?
Dr. Jerz,
since I can’t reach you through my e-mail, are you going to be in your office anytime this afternoon? I don’t have any classes and I would like to stop by to talk to you about American Lit.
Well, Mike, it seems like you are determined to invent something to complain about no matter what I say.
It’s pretty ridiculous that you think I am “promoting ideological lip-service dissent against any public representations of the difficulties the Army encounters” when I explicitly wrote that our troops “have my complete respect for doing a dangerous job well” and that “the act of serving our country in Iraq is heroic in and of itself.”
The Pulitzer photos showed only the difficulty our troops face, but none of their successes. That kind of one-sided media coverage can undermine public support for the military. It’s important to remind people that our troops have a difficult job on our hands, but it’s also important to show people that they are succeeding at that job. Do you disagree?
It seems to me like you are only interested in calling me names. Calling me a “chickenhawk” because I want our troops to be portrayed more even-handedly is just silly.
Take care,
–GB
Re the “insults” being “unwarranted:” no, they’re not. You’re still promoting ideological lip-service dissent against any public representations of the difficulties the Army encounters, they’re still doing their job and doing it well, and you’re still a spineless chickenhawk. But it’s OK: you’re young. Here’s one way to overcome these difficulties.
Let me know how it works out.
Dear Mike,
Your personal insults against me are unwarranted.
Veterans like yourself, as well as members of our military currently serving in Iraq and elsewhere, have my complete respect for doing a dangerous job well.
That is why I think the AP and the Pulitzer board did our troops a disservice by honoring a group of pictures that, in my opinion, promote the view that America is failing in Iraq. I would have preferred more photos making it clear that our troops are, as you say, “doing their job and doing it bravely and well.”
You may be interested in the following, which I have since added to the original post on my blog:
A number of people, on this site and others, have argued that photos 7 and 12 do not show U.S. troops looking “overwhelmed or uncertain”. Perhaps a better description would have been U.S. troops “under attack by, or searching for, insurgents”.
Other people have taken issue with my contention that none of the photos show U.S. troops “looking heroic”. It should go without saying (but apparently it didn’t) that I think the act of serving our country in Iraq is heroic in and of itself. Perhaps a better description here would have been U.S. troops “on the offensive” ? in other words, shown in the bold, almost romanticized way the insurgents are depicted in photos 6 and 15.
I hope this makes it clear where I stand.
Best regards,
–GB
“US forces looking heroic: 0”
This is simply stupid. Apparently, GaijinBiker wants every war memorial to look like the Iwo Jima memorial, and no war memorial to look like the Capitol’s Grant memorial. Apparently, GaijinBiker believes that photographs of American soldiers without them wearing heroic capes and boots are unpatriotic.
Let me tell you something, Mr. Chickenhawk GaijinBiker: I’m a veteran, and the majority of pictures you link to are pictures of “US forces looking heroic.” They’re doing their job and doing it bravely and well. Maybe if you had the spine to join the military you’d understand that — but you clearly don’t.
Coward.
Mike,
While I think it’s reasonable whether to disagree over whether a particular photo shows the US troops being overwhelmed or heroic, I think overall the point of GB’s post is that the AP photos showed more negative images than positive images. I think GB exaggerated unnecessarily in order to put “0” in the “favorable photo” column, but the way I read his post is that he was complaining that the AP presented more negative than positive images. Thus, I’m scratching my head a bit here.
Reading this entry reminded me of a site I had blogged about a while back called 10 x 10. It is a collection of the most newsworthy photos of the hour.. pretty interesting:
http://www.tenbyten.org/10×10.html