In addition to the Pulitzer prize given to a feminist at the Cleveland Plain Dealer that I wrote about earlier, various Pulitzer prizes in photography have gone out to various photographers covering the war. What with it being a war, these photographs are not sweet and cheerful things, and this has a number of right-wing bloggers throwing fits. The fits have been loud enough that they even got mentioned in Slate. In particular, a pair of photographs showing an execution on Haifa street had right-wing bloggers accusing the Associated Press of deliberately aiding terrorists, because an anonymous person claiming to be a contact with the AP disclosed that the photographer had gotten a tip that something might happen on Haifa street at about that time.
Of course, the same people making these accusations got just about every other fact wrong — and keep in mind, these are the same people that lambasted Dan Rather and Eason Jordan for making statements that, while not necessarily false, just could not be proven. These accusations can even be proven false.
I was starting in on a long entry on this when I discovered that Ryan over at Dead Parrot's Society has done an excellent job already. Kudos to Digby and Atrios for saving me a lot of time.
I still have a few things to add, though. The Pulitzer prize guidelines for this award are:
13. For a distinguished example of breaking news photography in black and white or color, which may consist of a photograph or photographs, a sequence or an album.
Nowhere in there does it state that such photographs have to support President Bush, or even a war effort. (Nor do Pultizer-winning cartoons, since those also seem to be drawing rage for no other reason than they are critical of current US policies.) Those executions were breaking news, and the reporter that had to risk getting shot to get them, even with a telephoto lens, did distinguish himself. The rest of the photographs are likewise stirring. They were well shot. They required skilled and courageous photographers. The libel coming from Powerline and others aside, nobody is disputing that these were distinguished examples, merely that they don't go out of their way to be useful as US government propaganda. Although in that they show the harshness of war they could be said to be anti-war, they are far from being anti-American; some of the shots, while perhaps tragic (as befits a recording of war), are worthy of remembrance for the sake of the soldiers.
You know, the over 1500 dead, and over 11,000 wounded, many permanently maimed, from this mess. Those that attack the journalists for portraying the truth of the war do injustice to all of the soldiers over there that want this to be over so they can come home — referably in one piece, with all parts functioning.
The Heretik wrote an excellent response to Slate, worth reading in its entirety, noting:
Among the most moving photos I saw in the group was taken of a group of American soldiers praying in a group over a fallen compatriot. Even the most godless person could not feel some words on lips asking for some kindness from above and no further curse in this sorry war from below.
So I must agree with the Associated Press, which called the attacks "deeply offensive", and I'd like to finish this with a link to the simple message Rox Populi has for the critics that I am, sadly, too fastidious to use myself, despite its simple aptness.
Update: Fixed a typo in a link that wiped out a chunk of a paragraph in the middle. Not sure how I missed that on preview...
