The Pulitzer Prize for felony murder…

goes to the Associated Press, for its photographer’s work with the terrorist murderers of Iraqi election officials. (Felony murder is the legal doctrine under which participants in a serious crime that results in death may be liable for murder even though they lacked the specific intent to commit murder.) See the AP story by Elizabeth LeSure on yesterday’s Pulitzers: “L.A. Times, WSJ win two Pulitzers apiece” (with links).
Among the photographs for which the Associated Press was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography is this one that we explored at length in “AP admits relationship with terrorists.” At the time of the photograph’s original publication, Rocket Man wrote:

The issue relates to the shocking photo, recently published by the AP, showing three terrorists in the act of murdering two Iraqi election workers on a street during daylight. The photographer was obviously within a few yards of the scene of the murder, which raises obvious questions, such as 1) what was the photographer doing there; did he have advance knowledge of the crime, or was he even accompanying the terrorists? and 2) why did the photographer apparently have no fear of the terrorists, or conversely, why were the terrorists evidently unconcerned about being photographed in the commission of a murder?
Salon printed a defense of the AP (and an attack on conservative bloggers) that included this anonymous comment from an AP spokesman:

A source at the Associated Press knowledgeable about the events covered in Baghdad on Sunday told Salon that accusations that the photographer was aware of the militants’ plans are “ridiculous.” The photographer, whose identity the AP is withholding due to safety concerns, was likely “tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street,” said the AP source, who was not at liberty to comment by name. But the photographer “definitely would not have had foreknowledge” of a violent event like an execution, the source said.

So the AP admitted that its photographer was “tipped off” by the terrorists. The only quibble asserted by the AP was that the photographer expected only a “demonstration,” not a murder. So the terrorists wanted to be photographed carrying out the murder, to sow more terror in Iraq and to demoralize American voters. That’s why they tipped off the photographer, and that’s why they dragged the two election workers from their car, so they could be shot in front of the AP’s obliging camera. And the AP was happy to cooperate with the terrorists in all respects. We’d like to ask some more questions of the photographer, of course, but that’s impossible since the AP won’t identify him because of “safety concerns.” Really? Who would endanger his safety? The terrorists? They could have shot him on Sunday if they were unhappy about having their picture taken. But they weren’t, which is why they “tipped off” the photographer. Belmont Club responded to the Salon defense here, in a post we linked to a day or two ago.
Now there’s more: Jim Romanesko got an email from another AP spokesman, this time Jack Stokes, the AP’s director of media relations. Here it is:

Several brave Iraqi photographers work for The Associated Press in places that only Iraqis can cover. Many are covering the communities they live in where family and tribal relations give them access that would not be available to Western photographers, or even Iraqi photographers who are not from the area.
Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. It’s important to note, though, that the photographers are not “embedded” with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures.

That makes the admission pretty well complete, I think. The AP is using photographers who have relationships with the terrorists; this is for the purpose of helping to tell the terrorists’ “stories.” The photographers don’t have to swear allegiance to the terrorists–gosh, that’s reassuring–but they have “family and tribal relations” with them. And they aren’t embedded–I’m not sure I believe that–but they don’t need to be either, since the terrorists tip them off when they are about to commit an act that they want filmed.

The Pulitzer Prize recipients this year generally seem an unimpressive lot. The columnist who won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary including one on “how managers at a restaurant were taking money from the tip jar at the coat check” will probably not be the next Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post) or Jack Kelly (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) or columnist extraordinaire Mark Steyn (Chicago Sun-Times et al.).
The feature writer who won a Pulitzer for “for her reconstruction of a deadly tornado” will probably not be the next Tom Wolfe (ex-New York Herald-Tribune) or Maura Lerner (Minneapolis Star Tribune — did the Strib submit Lerner’s incredible series of features on Sergeant Jessica Clements?). Add to the equation the fact that the Pulitzer committee saw fit to overlook the work of Claudia Rosett in exposing the largest corruption scandal of its kind in history.
Michelle Malkin has a post with a complete collection of links: “Controversy over Pulizer-winning photos.” The Pulitzer Prize awarded to the Associated Press for work based on complicity with murderers and enemies of the United States at war is a disgrace.