Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Pulitzer Prize Committee Pukes on America

...Oh, boy, the JerseyNut is riled now. I just got a gander at the winners of the Pulitzer prize winners for "photojournalism". Take a drink, then take a look at the winners. Virtually each one an anti-American portrait, taken out of context to make our heroic men and women overseas look either brutal, defeated, or terrified. The worst of the lot is one of a jihadi, taken profile style, with a resolute face, a bandalier criss-crossing his chest, and a dove on his soldier. Photos of Americans depict cowering, weeping, fallen soldiers, and prison confrontations.

Wretchard says it clearly:

Since news by definition shows the truth one would expect the insurgency so lovingly depicted in these AP photos to have triumphed. But since that never happened and prospects grow dimmer by the day..

I thought about this for a while - could these judges actually be rooting for terrorists who are killing innocent men, women and children in order to reinstate a tyrant who killed innocent men, women and children? Could they really be fawning over them so?
No, I decided. My conclusion is that they hate America so much that they will side with the lowest, vilest members of society just in order to poke a stick in our eyes. They are rooting for 21st century fascists to reign terror over the Middle East, just so they can escape their own self-loathing and feel superior to us, even if only for a moment.

No matter how many must die.
That is the level of their hate.

I wonder... if the judges got their wish, and America was defeated and the world ruled by Islamists...if do you think there would still be "Pulitzers Prizes" ?


The probligo said...

Yeah, I guess that you really like photos such as the three kids bribed with sweets to give the camera "thumbs up", or the "crowd" that cheered the destruction of Sadaam's statue - a wide shot showed no more than 200 people...

Like you say, the camera can lie. It is which truth you want to believe, rather than what is the truth that matters, huh!

Quite frankly, some of the photos that have been shown on the news and the net scare the SH!T out of me, not for what they portray; the violence, the blood and the guts, but for the knowledge that behind every one of those photos are stories of human tragedy.

As for Pulitzer winners - perhaps if the propaganda photos that you wish had been featured (like the three kids) were less staged or more honest they could well have been winners.

The photo of the dove - in my mind it is most truly a portrait of the irony of war. A GI pictured similarly would be a winner in your book, no less ironic in mine.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for restraining your anger, probligo! (seriously!)
My point is that no awards were given to any picture that may have showed Americans triumphant. That flies in the face of reality, as the "insurgents" have lost this war.
How about Iraqis triumphant? I appreciate the jihadi/dove irony (holy setup, Batman!); but to me (and as you would say, this is subjective), the Iraqi women raising her ink-stained finger seen in so many photos is the best image of the war - it shows the real winners, and it might be the fulcrum of a historical tipping point. Pulitzer, please!
Personally, I think the Iraqis identify more with my ink-stained voter than with the jihadi...
Apparently, based on recent events, many Arabs in the Middle East seem to identify with her as well.