Tim Blair

Too bad there are no good photographs of brutal dictators being dragged out of septic tanks. Maybe next year.

Waht, weren't there any pictures of baby-milk factory rubble piles to nominate?

World Press Photo of the Year ? Simply the politics of embarrassment, masquerading as compassion. A two-sided coin. Why, I did it myself the day before last.

In an attempt to counter the politically correct view of Zimbabwe, I posted a photo of a political rape victim, and a photo of the 'rapists'. On the charge of emotional manipulation, I guess I'm guilty. But I couldn't ignore her - her eyes accused me......

I rather think this said it all.

Damn, maybe this: Here.

How about this one?

It even includes an Iraqi kid.

I second that Rob A.

Or how about these...
http://www.hootinan.com/?entry=533_While_you_were_protesting

http://www.hootinan.com/?entry=528_While_you_were_protesting

http://www.hootinan.com/?entry=526_While_you_were_protesting...

Andrew: you put a "/" after the ".html" in your first url; that's why it didn't work. Preview is your friend, as well as reading my friendly directions above the comment box. Now if you will excuse me I am going to go crush some lumps of coal in my fists to make diamonds. It's a great way to work off frustration.

As Roger L. Simon put it, "In a sense it is all of journalism caught with its pants down . . ."

http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2004/02/little_green_fo_1.html

If you want something serious you could choose pretty much any picture from this site.

I've got a couple of possible contenders for silly picture of the year. And of course one of these is easily an early winner for Pic of the Year 2004.

Best picture of the year, hands down, should have been the one of a smiling civilian handing a laughing soldier a flower. The soldier was a British woman (Samantha somesomebody) carrying a rifle, the man was an Iraqi in the south of the country. Think of the levels of meaning in that one. Sorry, no link.

Found it! (The link)
Samantha Sheppard gets a flower from an Iraqi admirerer... here .

This collection is hard to beat...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/22/154650.shtml

You can vote for that photo.

Currently it's getting a 2.79,
hardly world shattering!

Clear winner here, I think.

I personally would rate this fairly poorly at best.

It is a "messy" image, with the wire being too sharp and therefore capturing too much viewer attention.

The shoes at lower right tend to pull the viewer's eyes out of the frame.

The large hood on the adult tends to "de-humanize" the person, and the whole image.

Worst of all, the image has little or no true impact.

As one who was for many years a judge in photographic competitions, I would give it 2/10 at B-Grade amateur level; at international professional level it doesn't rate at all.

My favorite from the war:

It's Good To Be A Man

How about these? How many of them did we see in our honest, unbiased newspapers?

Putting aside the political point, it's a terrible photograph. And there isn't even the excuse of time or danger. The photographer could have fixed the wire focus problem either by backing up a bit or by moving forward. If he knew his equipment, this should be second nature.

And yes, the politics behind it are awful too.

I like this one That Rob A posted. Its beautiful. The look on both their faces says it all.

I reckon this bugger swiped from Kev Gillett takes the biscuit; if nothing else, it deserves the Brown Trouser Award.

It would be nice if the link worked, Habib.

Andrea, you are a tough crowd!

I cannot apologise enough. Efendi! May the head-lice of a thousand public school students infest my fez.
Here's another go:- pathetic attempt at link.

I still like this one.

That's better, Habib. I have put away the cudgel -- for now.

Tim, how about a "World Blog Press" photograph of the year?

We'll sort through the APs and Reuters *good* photos and pick the best one for them, since they're obviously unfit to do so.

[OT] Hey, guys -- let me know if putting the posting directions in red helps them be more, um, visible.

Nah, Sorry Andrea, we're all pissheads and cretins who don't understand the subtleties of, um, posting directions or um, 'visible' text.

We do understand "patronizing" um, geeks.

Thank you for attention, we now return you to the Home Shopping channel.

Gee, Pedro the Ignorant, a bit sensitive today, are we? You know, if you aren't one of the people who don't seem able to see the very simple directions -- which I added as a service, to help -- then I wasn't talking to you. And I'd like to know who died and made you spokesman for every single commenter, anyway?

Take your pick:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/

Yeah, Mahatma, we totally deny that there was any killing, injury, or broken windows caused by us invading Iraq and deposing its ruthless, people-shredding, terrorist-sponsoring, batshit-crazy-sons-having Supreme Leader. Why, all we did was distribute ice cream cones to happy children. [/SARCASM OFF]

PS: so, Mahatma, were you one of the dudes in this parade?