Pulitzer Prize 2012. Warning may upset some people

PsiFox

Prefers Mac over PC any day
Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,240
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I've copied the original post from the other (closed) thread, into this new thread to give the topic a second chance. It's a good topic that we should be discussing on here.

Please post with the utmost respect to each others opinions, no matter how much you may disagree. Anymore childish bickering and we will be forced to dish out some suspensions/bans. Please don't make us do that, we don't like banning people.
 
Think it would be good to read this 1st



(Massoud Hossaini is the first Afghan to win the Pulitzer Prize. His work captures the horror of violence in Afghanistan.

He won the breaking news photography award for a picture he took after a suicide bombing in Kabul.

His is also the first Pulitzer Prize awarded to a photographer for the Agence France-Presse (AFP) news agency.

In the picture, a girl dressed in green stands among a crowd of dead and injured people.

Blood runs down her face as she screams in shock.

The scene was also shocking for the photographer.

Hossaini captured the scene on 6 December 2011. It was the Shia Muslim festival of Ashura, the day Shias mourn for Imam Hossain, their third imam and the grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

Sitting suicide bomber

The imam was killed with his family during a war in 680 CE.

Massoud Hossaini (left) is embraced by a colleague after winning a Pulitzer Prize for photography
To mark the day, children wear green dresses to show their sympathy with the imam's children, who were also killed.

Taraneh, the girl in the photograph, "had begged her parents to get her a green dress for Ashura", Massoud Hossaini, the 30-year-old photographer, told the BBC.

Though the family is not wealthy, they granted her wish.

It was the green dress that attracted Hossaini's attention at the start of the festival, a parade through the streets of Kabul.

Shortly after, a suicide bomber sat down in the middle of the crowd and blew himself up.

The bombing killed at least 54 people, and appeared to be part of a co-ordinated attack.

Injured by shrapnel

At about the same time, another bombing in a Shia mosque killed four in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
I still can't go back and look at the pictures I took that on that Ashura day”
End Quote
Massoud Hossaini

AFP photographer

Taraneh survived. Her brother, the family's only son, died. So did her aunts and uncles.

Hossaini was injured by flying shrapnel.

"It was a tiny and deep injury on my left forearm," he said.

Despite his injury, he started taking pictures.

It was then he saw Taraneh again.

"She was screaming in shock," he said.

He captured that photo, and many others.

"Then, I asked my driver to take me back to my office because the pain was getting unbearable," he said.

Hossaini called his brother, who is a doctor, and began uploading the pictures to the wire.

"I was working only with one hand," Hossaini said.

His brother treated his wound, and Hossaini then went to his parents' home.

"I needed to be with my family," he said. "My wife was not in the city that day. I couldn't be alone."

After three hours, AFP called him to let him know that three major American newspapers had published his picture.

"It's a big deal for a photographer to see his picture on the cover of newspapers like New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post," he said.

A few days later he contacted Taraneh and her family. He also put the family in touch with his brother, Assef Hossaini, the doctor.

"For the past two, three months, we have provided help to the family," Dr Hossaini told the BBC.

The Pulitzer is the third award that Hossaini has received for this picture.

Before his Pulitzer, he won the Pictures of the Year International award for best news picture, and took second place for Spot News in the World Press Photo 2012 contest.

But the accolades cannot repair the trauma Hossaini feels when he thinks of the blast.

"I still can't go back and look at the pictures I took on that Ashura day," he said.

from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17733461 )
__________________
 
Last edited:
That is quite a haunting photograph, I feel uneasy looking at it, I cannot possibly imagine how Hossaini feels and can fully understand why he cannot go back and look at the pictures.

I have every respect for him taking the shots, I don't know if I could if I was in the same position, I like to think that I'd have taken some shots and then helped with the casulties, but in reality I don't know, I'd have probably turned tail and ran and I'm ok with admitting that, I won't ever know for certain unless I am faced with a similar situation. It takes people like Hossaini to document these events and keep reminding the rest of the world that these attacks happen, that they are horrific and cause such a pointless waste of life.

These events shouldn't be ignored or brushed under the carpet as so many people do, but so many people have become so comfortable in their lives, their creature comforts and their relatively unprejudice safety that they do not even realise that such events happen and affect real people. To them, it is literally just a photo in a paper and a little story for them to read on the way to work.

That is not to say that everyone acts that way, there are plenty of people out there who fully understand these horrors and appreciate what they have in life. But they are few and far between, many people say they can understand such a situation and the horrors that follow in the aftermath, but can they? Can they really?

I for one have no issue in admitting I am one of those people who see's these images, but feel detached from the reality of it. I don't think I could ever really understand or appreciate how much an attack like this affects people without living through an attack myself. I can try to understand, but I know I won't fully understand. It almost makes me want to experience an attack like this first hand so I can understand and appreciate photos such as these for what they have captured. It's not just a girl surrounded by dead bodies, but the real raw emotions, the panic, fear, terror, but to wish for such a thing is an horrific thought in itself.

Please post with the utmost respect to each others opinions, no matter how much you may disagree.

I have not actually seen the other thread, but if anyone makes this thread (particularly due to the subject of it) devolve into bickering & childish slander, I can only say one thing - shame on you


.
 
Last edited:
Should be noted that this is only the winner of the breaking news category there is a feature photography as well.

Tis sad that only the pain and suffering images are discussed.
 
What I find scary is that I look at the image and yes, its horrific but I don't feel shocked by it. We see images (maybe not to this extent) in the news everyday and I honestly feel we (or maybe just me) are becoming desensitised.

The impact it must have on the photographer must be immense and possibly last a lifetime, much like tog who shot the image of a child in famine with the vultures nearby..

I don't know a great deal about the Pullitzer Prize and there must have been some tough images in this category this image does have incredible impact.
 
A powerful photo, but winning 'prizes' for it feels wrong.

Its alway a hard one,do we reward photographer who take hard hitting photos,the same as we do others photographer ?

And if not why,the Pulitzer prize is not the only one.
 
I've always believed images like this, which by the way is an excellent image and worthy of the award its won, should be seen.
Currently in this country we have media trying to censor similar images for fear of offending people, but the realities and horror of war, civil strife and unrest etc, NEED to be seen so that we, the general public can see the true horror, the reality of how life is in these situations as things aren't as clean, clear cut, surgical and sanatised as our governments would have us believe.
War is war and war is always horrific and barbaric
 
Terribly sad but I can't quite figure out how I feel about this one.

The main subject is screaming yet others (the woman top left plus girl and man by the door) seem more reflective so I'm not really sure what moment I'm party to. Certainly confusion and pain are captured for all to see.

The little boy bent over in lime green touches me most of all though.
 
I've always believed images like this, which by the way is an excellent image and worthy of the award its won, should be seen.
Currently in this country we have media trying to censor similar images for fear of offending people, but the realities and horror of war, civil strife and unrest etc, NEED to be seen so that we, the general public can see the true horror, the reality of how life is in these situations as things aren't as clean, clear cut, surgical and sanatised as our governments would have us believe.
War is war and war is always horrific and barbaric

Thanks Ian, I am not going to use any "smilies" to appreciate your comments, because I feel that this thread is above all of that. You have summed up perfectly what I feel about this image, and indeed another "iconic" image from the Vietnam war, which showed a young girl, running naked, her skin burnt from her body by napalm.
My wife has experienced a war zone, air raids as a citizen, and has experienced casualties from a village being admitted to hospital with chemical weapon's injuries (mid 1980's), and cannot watch war films, and finds the concept of war disgusting.
As you say Ian, war cannot be sanitised in the eyes of those who live through it.
 
To add, I am very proud that Chris Hondoros was nominated. It's so sad he is not here to see how much people thought of him.
 
I cant help but feel at this sort of scene the camera should have stayed at the very bottom of the bag, to win an award on the back of others grief and loss of life actually quite annoys me. The world needs to be aware of global affairs but how does one benefit from seeing an image like this?

It isn't hard to capture the emotion when people are enduring the worst moment of their life!
 
I cant help but feel at this sort of scene the camera should have stayed at the very bottom of the bag, to win an award on the back of others grief and loss of life actually quite annoys me. The world needs to be aware of global affairs but how does one benefit from seeing an image like this?

It isn't hard to capture the emotion when people are enduring the worst moment of their life!

I know that it seems very callous to take images like this, but the same could be said of any conflict, or shocking events, such as 9/11, the images of Auschwitz and the other camps at the end of WW2.
I think that images such as these, serve to educate people more than words in history books, they are real and not simply one person's view put into writing.
 
I honestly wonder if its THAT good a photograph.

Shocking subject matter, yes, and, of course, I'll never know if I could have done any better myself. But does it really express the horror of the situation?

Totally agree. Anyone with a phone camera could have taken the same picture. Why should he win an award for being in that particular place at that time? It's shocking, and horrible don't get me wrong. But an award...no. I know the point in the award is news and events rather than technical photography aspect, but surely any photography award should atleast have a fairly decently composed image. No thought has gone into it. To win an award I disagree with.

Isn't it also highly insulting that his priority was to take a picture given a) the situation and them begging for help and b) being injured himself ? Natural instinct was to take a photo. I find that....wrong.
 
Last edited:
I know that it seems very callous to take images like this, but the same could be said of any conflict, or shocking events, such as 9/11, the images of Auschwitz and the other camps at the end of WW2.
I think that images such as these, serve to educate people more than words in history books, they are real and not simply one person's view put into writing.

I don't think its right to use those as justification for this image, All the images of Auschwitz I have seen were of the aftermath and not dead bodies, the scale of the massacre was implied by the warehouse full of clothes, the huge piles of shoes etc... The people there photographed before they were killed was different, they didn't know they were about to be murdered. As for 9/11 People taking pictures of the planes striking the twin towers is different to this again. As for the other images of a similar nature to this one I would deem them equally callous. If i was just standing there crying for help having just lost my friends and family and someone decided to get there camera out and snap away I would be inclined to see how well said camera bounces off a wall. Being awarded for photography like this is irresponsible by the awarding body as it sends out all the wrong messages.

Totally agree. Anyone with a phone camera could have taken the same picture. Why should he win an award for being in that particular place at that time? It's shocking, and horrible don't get me wrong. But an award...no. I know the point in the award is news and events rather than technical photography aspect, but surely any photography award should at least have a fairly decently composed image. No thought has gone into it. To win an award I disagree with.

Isn't it also highly insulting that his priority was to take a picture given a) the situation and them begging for help and b) being injured himself ? Natural instinct was to take a photo. I find that....wrong.

I think that this reflects a few of my feelings towards the photo and the award itself. How about awarding the photographer that perfectly captured the joy on a mothers face when she is reunited with her little girl who she feared was dead?
 
I cant help but feel at this sort of scene the camera should have stayed at the very bottom of the bag, to win an award on the back of others grief and loss of life actually quite annoys me. The world needs to be aware of global affairs but how does one benefit from seeing an image like this?

It isn't hard to capture the emotion when people are enduring the worst moment of their life!

How did the world benefit from images like this!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4517597.stm
 
I cant help but feel at this sort of scene the camera should have stayed at the very bottom of the bag, to win an award on the back of others grief and loss of life actually quite annoys me. The world needs to be aware of global affairs but how does one benefit from seeing an image like this?

It isn't hard to capture the emotion when people are enduring the worst moment of their life!

That a bit harsh,you ever done it ?

:(

Growing up the images I saw from the camps,we're a lot worst than this photo.
We were told to look at theses photos and film,to see why we were fighting.
 
Last edited:
Isn't it also highly insulting that his priority was to take a picture given a) the situation and them begging for help and b) being injured himself ? Natural instinct was to take a photo. I find that....wrong.

Given what he said, I too find this disturbing, because I think that having taken a couple of images, he should have got stuck in, helping the victims who were worse off than himself. Just standing by filming whilst people were in dire need of help was not on.
 
That a bit harsh,you ever done it ?

:(
No, But I would like to think were I in a similar position I wouldn't mistake the dire situation as a photo opportunity.
Growing up the images I saw from the camps,we're a lot worst than this photo.
We were told to look at theses photos and film,to see why we were fighting.

I think you are missing the point here, I'm not doubting the existence of photos and videos in an archive somewhere that are far worse than these, but those cannot be used to justify taking pictures of this. To take an analogy to the extreme you couldn't stand up in court having killed someone and justify your actions by pointing out the hundreds of people that have committed worse crimes. What the photographer did was wrong and he shouldn't have done it and certainty not been awarded for it!
 
Last edited:
Given what he said, I too find this disturbing, because I think that having taken a couple of images, he should have got stuck in, helping the victims who were worse off than himself. Just standing by filming whilst people were in dire need of help was not on.

And if you been their just after a car bomb has gone of,you would know exactly what to do ? :(
 
No, But I would like to think were I in a similar position I wouldn't mistake the dire situation as a photo opportunity.


I think you are missing the point here, I'm not doubting the existence of photos and videos in an archive somewhere that are far worse than these, but those cannot be used to justify taking pictures of this. To take an analogy to the extreme you couldn't stand up in court having killed someone and justify your actions by pointing out the hundreds of people that have committed worse crimes. What the photographer did was wrong and he shouldn't have done it and certainty not been awarded for it!

So no more reporting war stories,or taking photos,that are not sanitised to your liking.
I am not saying,show everything,and that every photogpher has the moral high ground.
Their are some vulture out their,but let not judge everybody the same.

:(

I am out of this one,each to his owe opinion.
 
Last edited:
There's is a huge difference between not taking pictures like this and no more war stories and you know it. I have seen lots of excellent (award winning) reporting from war zones without the need for stuff like this.
 
All the images of Auschwitz I have seen were of the aftermath and not dead bodies

Then you haven't seen a lot of photos from Auschwitz.

Being awarded for photography like this is irresponsible by the awarding body as it sends out all the wrong messages.

No, it doesn't. It's a reward for bringing a very real image of a very real conflict to the greater world. The Pulitzer Prize isn't one for artistic excellence, it's an award for journalism, and that's exactly what this photograph is doing - documenting an event in the most visceral way possible.

The fact that it's disturbing is why the image is so successful.

Why sanitise reality? Are you not comfortable with being confronted by the reality of the world we live in? Would you rather pretend the world is all unicorns and rainbows? It's photos like this that drive home the suffering of our fellow humans around the world, and in doing so, it raises awareness and provokes discussion. That's a good thing.

Your line of thinking is very Orwellian.
 
Natural instinct was to take a photo. I find that....wrong.

No, his natural instinct was to show what had happened to the entire world, to show people the real victims of these attacks. It's one thing to read "another suicide bomber" in the news, it's another thing entirely to see the actual people affected. The latter is far more effective at educating the world and getting people to sit up and consider what's going on around them.

I know the point in the award is news and events rather than technical photography aspect, but surely any photography award should atleast have a fairly decently composed image. No thought has gone into it.

We're shown the immediate, brutal horror of a suicide attack and you're quibbling that no thought went into the composition of the photo? Really? Do you even know what the Pulitzer Prize is?
 
We're shown the immediate, brutal horror of a suicide attack and you're quibbling that no thought went into the composition of the photo? Really? Do you even know what the Pulitzer Prize is?

Crazy isn't it? Based on this thread, and the way the last thread went, 80% of people on here have never heard of the Pulitzer and think it's some little namby pamby prize for taking a pretty photograph :gag:.
 
There's is a huge difference between not taking pictures like this and no more war stories and you know it. I have seen lots of excellent (award winning) reporting from war zones without the need for stuff like this.

Stuff like what,:thinking:,the aftermath of an car bomb,thats war, not the nice clean photos sanitised for west so they don't get upset over their breakfast :(

I would just like to add,I do not alway Adgreed with some photographer,and the media corps they work for always going after the so called bang bang shot,it does not always tell the deeper story.
 
Last edited:
Is that a serious question? I'm stunned someone on a photography site would ask that.

The point I was trying to make was of course it makes a difference and these images need to been seen through out the world. We are photographers and the images we take, convey an emotion whether it be arr that's cute or shock horror.
The ability to be able to get the camera out of the bag in though's circumstances has to be commended and admired.
 
Although looking at images like this does make me feel a little uneasy, I also find them compelling because the are meant to accompany a story, an account of the events through the photographer's eyes. Photojournalism takes the aesthetic that we prize so much as photographers and makes it compete with the facts and the background, the before and after of the shot. It's stuff I could never shoot but if everyone was like me, we'd be unaware of a lot of what's going on.

As an image on its own it is powerful but doesn't have many 'artistic' merits in the usual sense. But that's not the point of this kind of photography. This is not Durdle Door at sunset, or waves crashing over rocks through a 10-stop ND filter.... it's hard evidence of what's going on in the world through the eyes of people who are there and with a story to tell.

Whether the photographer is right or wrong to shoot first and ask questions later isn't the issue; the rights and wrongs are about what we see. Is the fight of the extremist valid and is their 'means to an end' (suicide bombing) the right, the logical path? That's one of many questions I ask as a westerner who will never come anywhere close to something like this.

The award is just an end result. The photographer will be shooting because they feel they have to. Whether or not they revel on the idea of competition entry and the potential of winning is a separate matter.

And those who poo-poo the Pulitzer (and similar accolades) obviously haven't looked at the scores of other powerful images that have created to catalogue human existence through the ages. This isn't just about war and suffering - that just happens to be what's going on now - have a look at previous winners and see the diversity of their work.
 
Last edited:
And if you been their just after a car bomb has gone of,you would know exactly what to do ? :(

If you had bothered to read most of my posts then you would see that I basically agree with the images being taken.
I do however have a problem with the photographer carrying on taking images when people were asking for help, as you can always be of assistance if you are able bodied, which he largely was (apart from a minor shrapnel injury).
He could have used simple common sense, got a few images, then organised some help, basic first aid (I am not a first aider, but would know what to do, regarding recovery position, trying to stop bleeding, comforting people), instead he just carried on regardless.
 
Then you haven't seen a lot of photos from Auschwitz.



No, it doesn't. It's a reward for bringing a very real image of a very real conflict to the greater world. The Pulitzer Prize isn't one for artistic excellence, it's an award for journalism, and that's exactly what this photograph is doing - documenting an event in the most visceral way possible.

The fact that it's disturbing is why the image is so successful.

Why sanitise reality? Are you not comfortable with being confronted by the reality of the world we live in? Would you rather pretend the world is all unicorns and rainbows? It's photos like this that drive home the suffering of our fellow humans around the world, and in doing so, it raises awareness and provokes discussion. That's a good thing.

Your line of thinking is very Orwellian.

Well said Leigh.
 
See post #11.
This iconic image, probably did more to turn people against war than any other. Whether or not it is right is another question, but it does allow us to see the results of something which may be totally alien to us.

As I said the last time this was discussed the basic difference is that picture had the effect it did because the US government was subject to the opinion of its voters many of whom were horrified by the image.

the harm in the image by the OP has been perpertrated by Al Queada or similar who dont give a flying **** about public opinion of what they do - in fact they positively welcome people being horified by their actions as it gives them the oxygen of publicity.

ergo taking pictures like the one in the OP doesnt help bring that kind of violence to an end and indeed may help perpetuate it.

and photographically speaking its (the OP picture) not that good a picture (unlike many vietnam photos for example), its really just a snap which could have been taken by anyone with a camera or even a phone
 
Last edited:
ergo taking pictures like the one in the OP doesnt help bring that kind of violence to an end and indeed may help perpetuate it.

With all due respect, that's a ludicrous assertion. Help perpetuate it? How? The fact is that news stories can have biased spins, and text can be interpreted and argued over in many different ways. An image, on the other hand, says everything. You can't put a spin on it. It's raw, and it's real. In the west we are so detached from the reality of the war these people live with on a daily basis despite, in many cases, having a hand in it - why are some of you so averse to seeing a dose of reality? Do you prefer that the harsh reality of our world is kept from you? Do you not appreciate being faced with images that make you think? The very fact that this image has provoked so much discussion is testament to its power and success. As with art, journalistic photography should be provocative sometimes, because it's good to confront people, it's good to challenge views and it's good to get people talking. News of the world shouldn't just be absorbed by the people reading/seeing/hearing it, it should be discussed and debated. It should engage people.

I for one don't want to live in a world of censored news where nobody discusses the conflicts, catastrophes and other calamities that our fellow humans are enduring.

and photographically speaking its (the OP picture) not that good a picture (unlike many vietnam photos for example), its really just a snap which could have been taken by anyone with a camera or even a phone

facepalm.jpg
 
Last edited:
I cant help but feel at this sort of scene the camera should have stayed at the very bottom of the bag, to win an award on the back of others grief and loss of life actually quite annoys me. The world needs to be aware of global affairs but how does one benefit from seeing an image like this?

It isn't hard to capture the emotion when people are enduring the worst moment of their life!

The photo wasn't taken for your benefit, it was taken to show what is happening in the photographer's own country. If people were killing babies in the street in your home town would you not want to get the word out there?

You say it isn't hard to capture the emotion - I'd argue you're way off the mark there, not exactly a safe working environment for Hossani, chaos all around him, and you'd think, the thought that he could very easily have died seconds earlier would be running through his head, making his job quite difficult. Even if it were 'easy' does that make it any less powerful an image?

I honestly wonder if its THAT good a photograph.

Shocking subject matter, yes, and, of course, I'll never know if I could have done any better myself. But does it really express the horror of the situation?

A clearly distraught 12 year old girl with blood on her face, surrounded by dead including members of her family and a young baby, during a religious service. How much more horror do you want?

Totally agree. Anyone with a phone camera could have taken the same picture. Why should he win an award for being in that particular place at that time? It's shocking, and horrible don't get me wrong. But an award...no. I know the point in the award is news and events rather than technical photography aspect, but surely any photography award should atleast have a fairly decently composed image. No thought has gone into it. To win an award I disagree with.

Almost beyond words for that, staggeringly ignorant and offensive. :shake:

Why should he be commended for being in that place at that time? I'd start with the fact he was knowingly risking his life to tell an important story. All photojournalism relies on being in the 'right' place at the 'right' time, usually a heck of a lot of work goes into ensuring that happens. Same with sport photography and many other genres. Probably shouldn't bother recognising anyone who shoots that stuff then..

Then of course there's the composure and skill to realise what needs to be shown from a split second event, and to take photographs that tell the story. This particular image is well timed, composed and exposed, as were several others he took on the day. How would you suggest he improved next time?

Isn't it also highly insulting that his priority was to take a picture given a) the situation and them begging for help and b) being injured himself ? Natural instinct was to take a photo. I find that....wrong.

How is his taking a photograph when he's injured, insulting to anyone? :thinking: As for offering 'help' and/or taking photographs - that's been discussed for decades so won't bother going into it again here.

I don't think its right to use those as justification for this image, All the images of Auschwitz I have seen were of the aftermath and not dead bodies, the scale of the massacre was implied by the warehouse full of clothes, the huge piles of shoes etc... The people there photographed before they were killed was different, they didn't know they were about to be murdered...

As said above. You haven't seen many photographs from the holocaust. And I think you may have misunderstood some of those you have seen.

How did the world benefit from images like this!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4517597.stm

Photographs and film footage from the Vietnam war possibly saved thousands (maybe more) of lives. And likely still contributes towards generating aid for those affected today.

No, But I would like to think were I in a similar position I wouldn't mistake the dire situation as a photo opportunity.

I think you are missing the point here, I'm not doubting the existence of photos and videos in an archive somewhere that are far worse than these, but those cannot be used to justify taking pictures of this. To take an analogy to the extreme you couldn't stand up in court having killed someone and justify your actions by pointing out the hundreds of people that have committed worse crimes. What the photographer did was wrong and he shouldn't have done it and certainty not been awarded for it!

Does the fact that pictures 'worse' than this, in part, lead to ending wars, generating millions of dollars of aid and convicting war criminals justify the taking of this photograph?
 
I would suggest that those arguing step back and consider the bigger picture.

It is not a question of why he took the photo, he's a photographer with a camera and has acted on instincts probably whilst heavily shocked. The fact is he captured a horrific image that happened right in front of him.

Awards are obviously open to argument but this is an image that will stand the test of time to tell of a brief moment in a conflict most of can't imagine and hopefully will never be part of. How many images do we take that realistically have little or no impact in the grand scheme of things?

Criticising composition in a shot like this beggars belief but some obviously consider it important. I'm pretty certain that the photographer wasn't looking for lead in lines or the rule of thirds when he took it...

Now, if one of us had taken the shot and posted it for critique and it hadn't been award winning I wonder how that would have panned out on here?

As I said near the beginning of this thread, the sad thing is that we see so many pictures and videos of these terrible things, that we become desensitised to the point it is shared and discussed on an open forum. The victims become subjects when really we should be up in arms that this atrocity has occurred.
 
A clearly distraught 12 year old girl with blood on her face, surrounded by dead including members of her family and a young baby, during a religious service. How much more horror do you want?

That's the problem, the more the better for you to win a prize.
 
Sounds like a lot of people would like the only photojournalism from Afghanistan/Iraq to be smiling squaddies kicking a football around with some adorable local ruffians, with captions telling us how great the boys are doing.
 
Back
Top