Blood for Pulitzers

Last week a military spokesman stated AP photographer and accused terrorist, Bilal Hussein:

“possessed foreknowledge of an improvised explosive device (I.E.D.) attack” on American and Iraqi forces, “that he was standing next to the I.E.D. triggerman at the time of the attempted attack, and that he conspired with the I.E.D. triggerman to synchronize his photograph with the explosion.”

AP stated “The Associated Press continues to believe that claims Bilal is involved with insurgent activities are false.” Recall, however, their loose definition of involvement made back in 2005, after winning the Pulitzer prize for several controversial Iraq photographs including a murder conveniently committed in front of an unnamed AP photographer:

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.

In the above photo, AP conceded the photographer was "tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street." Is it too much of a stretch for the AP to wonder if their chroniclers of Iraqi terrorism also happen to be terrorist? Or are they trying to protect their Pulitzer?

H/T Neo-Neocon who compares the ethics of Mike Wallace with Bilal and finds Wallace lacking.

Related: The Jawa Report chronicles the Bilal Hussein story

Michelle Makin provides Bilal photographs. AP still thinks this guy just happens to be in the right place at the right time?

Originally posted in UNCoRRELATED 26 Dec, 2007