2013 Pulitzer Prize photography winners announced

Unfortunately, a next year winner will be from Boston....tragedies, disasters & human suffering, that's what sells and gets prizes.

Seem like the only way to win is to take photos at places where your chances of getting shot is more than 50%. If they keep giving prizes like these, I wonder how many good photographers will be left. Are they trying to let the bullets eliminate some of the candidates so that the job of finding the winners will become easier.

I find the photos nice but I don't think I will remember them after seeing them, which means to me they don't stand out. Nice, but not impressive. The subject or subjects? Do they really need to pick photos from the same war in the same country? I guess that seems to be the favored theme, which is kinda sad.

I guess war was the only photo news worthy subject in a year. War wins, 6 - 0.

Either that, or our collective minds are so twisted up with socio-political tripe that we no longer know Sh|t from Shinola. On that subject, I bought an old can of Shinola on eBay a few weeks ago, just so I could show people the difference.

Pictures of gangsters and killers are very bad, they are killing their own people! Real heroes are soldiers Assad, they protect the people from these killers are in these photos! It is foolish to choose the winner of the photo which captures the murderers of their own people, this is considered an icon of a photo of Hitler to the German people. I realize that my words do not mean anything to those who espouse the Free Syrian Army mercenaries, and I understand that my comments do not get on that wall for reading.

The first photo is extraordinary, especially when you realize it's real, not Hollywood. But it does seem like these are awards for bravery first, and photography, second. Sadly, this type of image is commonplace these days.

From my perch, the Pulitzer, especially for writing and almost as much for photography has become a political joke, similar to the "Nobel Peace Prize".

Having read every Pulitzer prize winning book for the last 15 years I think Joseph would be turning over in his grave if he saw where this has gone. Same for photography

I wonder, if next Pulitzer Prize is won by photos from Boston Marathon bombing... how many people would say: staged, fake, totally uninteresting stuff, war war....ok, propaganda, etc., etc?

Why winning photography has to do with human brutality and suffering?

Pictured definition of the elite's war propaganda.

Photography has many uses, and one of them is to make a memorable image that tells a story. Not all stories are nice, and some of the stories we need to hear are definitely ugly. But for those who complain about "not another war photograph", let's have an alternative DPReview Pulitzers:

1) Best over-processed HDR
2) Best Cat
3) Best moody black and white cliche
4) Best flower cliche
5) Best street shot of people wandering aimlessly through the frame
And so on.

By the way, I've shot almost all those cliches, and I live in constant admiration of those who put their lives on the line to get the images we see here.

Where is the optimism? War photographs.. Is this all there is? (Then let's keep dancing).

war war war war....ok...thank you guys

The pulitzer prize was once an esteemed award, but now it is a cheapened circle-rub session amongst pre-approved club members of the big corporate media machine.

I appreciate the photos. Maybe could have also included photos from other parts of the world. A lot happened the last 12 months- so many other places, cultures, people and events...

''Perhaps you've heard of something called a Civil War going on in Syria? These photographers are literally putting their lives at risk so that the rest of can learn, on a very visceral and human level, about tragedies that have claimed many thousands of lives there.''

Learn exactly what?
The same old tired propaganda, depicting ''heroic'' rebel fighters posing for the camera. Had they been documenting the other side they may at least had been a bit interesting and challenging, since no one does that. Images like that in abundance on Al Jazeera and other news outlets. Totally uninteresting stuff.

While I do like the images it is sort of hard to say that they are of the moment. The inside shot could have been taken anywhere. The shot of the guy in the street only looks stage because of the three guys hanging out with no enthusiasm at all vs the guy in the shot. I wont say they are fake but I will say that there is room for discussion. I wasn't there. Its that simple

If you go to the Pulitzer web site and look at the images taken by these photographers you can see that they're of the moment and powerful. They're staged only to the extent that the photographer positioned himself to get a good shot and composed well.

See: http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2013-Breaking-News-Photography

A point source / divergent rays of light? Did he place a strobe back there? Staged much?

These pictures are staged. The prize was not rewarded for "Breaking News Photography" unless you regard staged news as real news. Sorry to be so blunt. But, this must be said.