PhotoDude.com

The Daily Whim

The Daily Whim

My Site, My Whims, Your Consternation

Tue. Apr 09, 2002

Who To Honor?

Who To Honor? – There appears to be a wee bit of controversy over the Pulitzer Prize(s) for photography: "The Pulitzer committee yesterday told the City of New York, our selfless firefighters, 3,000 victims of this nation’s bloodiest terror attack, and the American flag to go to hell."

My, my. Andrea Peyser of the New York Post, in a slightly calmer moment, explains herself: "The first great photograph of the 21st century, taken by Thomas Franklin of The Record of Hackensack, quickly achieved the status of international icon. It’s been compared to the 1945 Pulitzer-winning shot of Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima. And the Pulitzer committee turned up its nose. Yesterday, the Pulitzer for the year’s best spot-news photography was awarded to the dependably politically correct New York Times."

While Ms. Peyser makes a valid if subjective point, there are a couple of others this discussion brings to mind. From what I can tell at the Pulitzer site, the other nominees in photography were individuals who worked for a news publication. Since the winner is the ”New York Times staff”, I have to assume that’s the way the NY Times chose to submit, either by management decision or some kind of staff consensus.

Note, I’m no photojournalist, nor do I claim any special understanding of their field and its nuances, like this one, but my first thought was, ”well, that’s kinda crappy.” Why not allow one worthy individual on your staff to be honored? Then there’s the argument that such a block submission handicaps the photographers from other papers who are entered individually, putting them up against the entire staff of the Grey Lady, on the scene.

I imagine it’s not the first time it’s happened, but it made me think: if you have trouble deciding which image from that visual horror is ”the best,” and which individual deserves a ”prize” for it, shouldn’t you maybe think on another level?

Who to honor?

Bill Biggart. He lost his life doing his job 9/11, shooting to the end. Killed in the second collapse, when his body was dug out of the rubble four days later, so were his cameras, and his last 300 images were revealed.

Here’s your Pulitzer winning photo. Is it the ”best” taken that day? I don’t know, to my knowledge it’s the only photo of the Marriot between tower collapses. But more importantly, it’s Bill Biggart’s last.

And he should get the honor for it.

Posted 3:53PM, Tue, Apr 09 2002 in · · 4 Comments below


Peanut Gallery

1  Aaron Dickey wrote:

and his last 300 images were revealed. Were they all truly revealed? The TV and print editors of New York have had a universal self-censorship gentlemens' agreement going since about 9:15 am on 9/11, to insure that no truly "graphic" photos ever see the light of day. Plenty of pictures of twisted steel, lots of video of concrete-dust-covered workers streaming northward, but absolutely no photos or video that show the true carnage of what happened that day. Very little of what truly occurred in Lower Manhattan that day has ever been revealed, and never will be until some news organization employee gets the balls to sneak out one night with a box full of some of the untold thousands of censored photos, starts scanning them and releasing them anonymously on the net.

Comment by Aaron Dickey · 04/10/02 09:16 PM
2  Pete Peterson wrote:

I just sent the picture to my friend in Jersey. At a conference at the Marriott the day before, he was late that day due to a dental appointment. He heard about the attack at the train station on his way in.

Comment by Pete Peterson · 04/11/02 02:01 PM
3  PhotoDude wrote:

Aaron, is it possible that the "carnage" you seek in imagery is the same place about half of the people lost that day: simply missing, pulverized, just as 220 stories of concrete and steel were? The human body can't be expected to survive what concrete and steel can't. There was nothing left but a huge pile, and far less bodies to recover than the number of lives lost that day. Plus, where was the carnage, Aaron? 70 to 100 stories in the air. You did see the pictures of people jumping/falling to their death, didn't you? I saw plenty. Everything I needed to know, and haunt me the rest of my life. Finally, you might also consider that at those few intermittent moments when some "carnage" might have been on display, photographers were mostly doing what everyone else was: running for their lives. Bill Biggart didn't quite make it, thinking he was "safe" underneath the pedestrian walkway. And by the way, in the print version of Newsweek magazine from that week in October, there's a far more extensive presntation of him images than the six that are online.

Comment by PhotoDude · 04/11/02 09:37 PM
4  Aaron Dickey wrote:

Sorry, PhotoDude, but you're incorrect on this. Dozens of NYC-based editors fully admit the imagery exists, and that they've intentionally quashed it. This was discussed in detail over at Poynter.org not long after 9/11. And of course I have seen the photos from 70-100 stories up. Those are photos that cause mere emotional reactions because we knew what came afterwards. They are not inherently gruesome themselves. What if all the jumping people somehow had gotten caught in giant safety nets on the ground, and all the people stuck on the higher floors had somehow been rescued? Then those photos would have been merely "incredibly cool" for most people, not "photos of carnage" or even particularly haunting.

Comment by Aaron Dickey · 04/19/02 09:07 AM
Comments are closed for this article
Contact me to find out more