World Press Photo 2016 winners

[Warren Toda]

The 2016 World Press Photo Contest results are in. Yes, you'll notice that the most powerful photo from 2015, the picture that was published around the world, is missing.

[Richard Ernst]

All,

Very pleasing to see Canadian Kevin Frayer awarded for his work.

Ric Ernst.

[Lars Hagberg]

Did the photographer(s) submit the Alan Kurdi pictures?

[Warren Toda]

Did the photographer(s) submit the Alan Kurdi pictures?

That's what I was alluding to.

On a side note, why did Canadian news media change the boy's name to Alan or Allan when the rest of the world used Aylan?

[Chris Helgren]

The boy's aunt in Coquiltlam told the assembled media he was Alan, so after that the Canadian media changed up. However as Arabic is a phonetic language there could be a bunch of different spellings with Latin script. Hence, Mohamed can be Mohammed or Mahmud even.. etc etc

[Chris Helgren]

I'm told that the Aylan Kurdi photo was submitted, it passed unanimously to the second round in the news category but I don't yet know what happened after that

[David Buzzard]

Wait for the Pulitzers to come out.

[Moe Doiron]

Wait for the Pulitzers to come out.

It won't win a Pulitzer either, those entries must originate from a US based newspaper or wire service.

I'm not surprised it did not place in WPP, it is not at all consistent with how that contest has been judged in recent years.

[David Buzzard]

I thought the photo was from an AP stringer, but I could be wrong. 

[David Buzzard]

One of the criteria I always liked about the Pulitzer was that they had to take into consideration the effect of the photo on public policy.  I think the photo had a big effect on Canadian refugee policy, somewhat of an effect in Europe, and probably no effect at all int he US.

[Moe Doiron]

I thought the photo was from an AP stringer, but I could be wrong.

Nilüfer Demir, a photographer working for the Turkish agency DHA.

[Andy Clark]

I was surprised the Kurdi photo did not show up in the WPP also, however, I do have a theory that is not based on any data to support just a gut feeling. I have noticed on a few occasions in recent years that news photos that, to use the modern term, "go viral" on the internet rarely win major photo contests or place poorly. I am not sure why but as cold and clinical as this may sound in this particular case, I think it may have to do with the photo losing its effect. No matter how dramatic or heart breaking the photo may be, if you see it over and over again hour after hour, day after day as in this case the mind slowly becomes numb to it.

In the past before the internet there is no question the photo would have appeared on front pages of papers and in major magazines and maybe even on TV news networks. (though in pre internet days TV usually used stills in background of the news reader and not full screen) The photo would then have faded soon after and probably only been used small as a filer buried inside the publication on followup stories. Move to the present and for days even weeks every time I went online the photo was front on centre on news websites and full screen on the TV news daily...the photo was literally everywhere, one could not surf the internet anywhere and not see it in some form or another at least a couple times an hour for days or weeks afterward and as I mentioned earlier it gets to point where you don't really see the photo's heartbreaking content any longer.

I think a case could be made also for Richard Lam's beautiful image of the couple kissing during the Stanley Cup riots which went "viral" also and I was convinced that photo would deservedly clean up in the major photo contests....I don't believe or remember it won much if anything but I could be wrong. There was a couple other photos but they don't come to mind at this writing...I should have marked it down when I noticed.

I could well be way out in left field with this theory. This is only something that I noticed and haven't looked at in any detail and only reminded me when I saw earlier posts.