dialstatic: I see a person and a baby crossing a barbed wire border. The photo shows this regardless of whether this is a desirable thing or not. It is a thing that happens, and is receiving a lot of media- and policy attention: a core issue of our time.
I see the photographer as someone who wants to give this story - for better or worse - a human face. Someone who wants to spark a discussion about it.
Except what we're doing here is not really a discussion. Many comments seem to simply use this image to legitimate pre-existing views - interpret it solely based on one's extant frame of reference, when it's really an ideal opportunity to reflect on am question what you take for granted. Oh well.
The problem is not that this image or story receives attention but that images supporting alternative points of view are not: the judgement is biased.
Imagine submitting an image with a portraying migrant gangs in Germany, European Muslims in burkas, a mosque which looks extremist, or PEGIDA at a silent protest. These images can also be emotive and relevant but would have no chance of winning a prize.
It is fine to appreciate this image but only with a bias filter, understanding that you are seeing this image because it won a prize and it won a prize because it is creating emotions that are pro-migrants.
Excellent. This was a long time coming. Great that equivalent aperture is now available in dpreview data instead of just actual aperture. Now that people are comparing compact cameras with very different sensor sizes this will make comparisons much easier.