Christ, I hate long quotey posts, but here goes...
you aren't the only one
This was a Sunni/Shiite incident. AQ did not necessarily play a part in it, and considering where it took place, it's actually quite unlikely that they did. They may have been loosely affiliated with a group involved but primarily attacks like these are not their doing.
This is getting silly now as theres no possible way you , or indeed anyone on the forum could have any detailed knowledge of who was or wasnt involved
But that's neither glorifying nor perpetuating the violence, as that's not how it's spun in the west.
Who cares how its spun in the west - the point is that thanks to that photograph far more people have heard about that attack than would have done otherwise - which is what the terrs want (and before any pedant starts yes I know 'Terr' is a term that originated in the rhodesian conflict - I'm using it here to mean any terrorist )
Now you're saying it's helping to spread a "violent message". This, again, is fundamentally different to your earlier suggestion that photos perpetuate violence.
I do sometimes wonder if we are speaking the same language, it isn't fundamentally different, in fact it isnt different at all - its exactly the flipping same :bang:- By spreading the message that the terrorists want spread (ie that they are prepared to kill and maim to achieve their aims) this kind of coverage helps these attacks be 'succesful' in acheiving the terrorists aim (ie to terrorise) and thus help perpetuate them as a tool of terror.
Again, this depends on the spin, and in the west, since the spin is not one of glorification, your point is irrelevant. The images would only glorify the act if used in an extremist propaganda video, but that's not what you're saying here.
No it doesnt - I'm not sure where the reference to glorification came from - my point was that the Terrs glory in these attacks being reported (for those withou a theasaurus to glory in = to revel in, to welcome etc). The point being that the terorist don't care if they are reviled in the west so this kind of reporting isnt going to stop these attacks from happening (unlike the effect that the vietnam photos had on the US govt of the era)
Well, when you quibble about composition or bring gear snobbery into the equation, then you really well and truly are missing the point of the Pulitzer Prize.
I don't remember mentioning gear snobbery - my point was that the point of the pulitzer prize is to reward great journalism/photo journalism - and great photojournalism is more than just being in the right place at the right time. (also with regard to quivbbling about the photo - we are on a photographers forum, in a photo section)
What? Of course that's what it's about; or, at least, that's a huge part of it. It's about conveying a news story through images. If there weren't people in the right place at the right time, we'd have no immediate, at-the-scene photo journalism at all.
Its part of it but not the whole thing - a great photo journalist is in the right place at the right time and captures great well composed /exposed etc shots which have power to comunicate through there images because they are more than just snaps.
Please explain why those images are superior, artistically, to this. Because frankly I don't think they are. The Trang Bang image and others are remembered and were rewarded not for their artistic elements but for their journalistic value in documenting the event they captured.
I agree that the trang bang image is remembered for its journalistic impact - but the reason it had that impact was down to its photographic power in comunicating the emotions of the moment - and that came from the way it is composed (ie the viewers eye is drawn into the centre from the boy on the left to the girl at the focal point who is framed by the indifferent marines and the eye isnt drawn away by any other distracting element)
Without a time machine it isnt practical to resolve this debate but I would put money that in 30 years time the kabul shot won't be remembered as one of the defining images of the afghan conflict - because at the end of the day (IMO) its just snap in comparison. (e.g in composition although the viers eye is drawn to the screaming girl their are various distracting elements on the right and upper edge )
Now since we fundamentally disagree about pretty much everything on this thread could we just agree to differ and move on. I am now leaving the thread and will not be drawn into more pointless argument as that is not what marcel wanted when he reopened this topic of discussion
