Poll: Journalistic Ethics (AKA Death photo on New York Post cover)

[IckleMissMayhem]

It's not the use of the photo that offends me, it's the fact the thing exists at all that sickens me. And I hope the photographer comes up with better reasoning for their lack of actions other than "I was hoping my flash would alert the train driver" because that is some Grade-A bullshit right there.

 

[Vrex360]

Everything about that is disgusting. The fact that the photographer (and no one else from the looks of it) did nothing to try to help is disgusting but then the fact that they had to use that awful 'DOOMED' tagline which is cheezy and stupid and utterly devaluing the severity of the situation for the sake of a shocking front page. I really hope this becomes a major controversy that destroys that newspaper's reputation.
I also have to wonder how that camerman lives with himself knowing that when someone's life was in danger he'd rather take a picture than actually help. Someone else said that he couldn't have made it in time and that there was nothing he could have done but frankly I think it'd be a lot easier to live with oneself knowing that you tried to save someone's life and failed rather than just stood by and took a picture moments before their death. Especially if you are then going to allow a tacky tagline to essentially shit on the man's memory and the situation you maybe could have prevented.

I mean Christ definite lapse in Journalistic ethics and I can't image the guy's family was pleased that this picture and caption that basically says 'this eye catching front page meant more to us than someone's life' and while admittedly I cannot truly be certain that if I were in this similar situation that I would be leaping in to be a hero. I might just freeze up and helpless with shock and fear and not able to snap out of it in time but Christ I know I wouldn't take a fucking picture.
That's borderline demonic.

 

[Smeatza]

snip

Well we're just going to have to agree to disagree then, as I would say there is too little evidence (at least at the moment) to make any conclusions or judge anyone involved (besides the murderer of course).
There's certainly no justification to say there's "plenty of evidence" to show that people could have helped. Just a small bit of unreliable evidence (there is of course some unreliable evidence indicating the opposite is true) and a shitload of conjecture.

I was criticising Jacco for condemning the photographer for emotive, not factual reasons. He wrote that even if the photographer knew with 100% certainty that he could not help the man up off the tracks, he should have tried anyway, and that he was a bad person for not doing so. Which is sensationalist.

Admittedly your last post toned it down a little but your previous post did say that "22 seconds and not a single person was in sight when the picture was taken? It just makes me feel sick." To have such an emotive response, that implies blame should be placed on those who witnessed the incident, without having the full facts first, is at least a little bit sensationalist.

 

[Iyon]

snip

Well we're just going to have to agree to disagree then, as I would say there is too little evidence (at least at the moment) to make any conclusions or judge anyone involved (besides the murderer of course).
There's certainly no justification to say there's "plenty of evidence" to show that people could have helped. Just a small bit of unreliable evidence (there is of course some unreliable evidence indicating the opposite is true) and a shitload of conjecture.

I was criticising Jacco for condemning the photographer for emotive, not factual reasons. He wrote that even if the photographer knew with 100% certainty that he could not help the man up off the tracks, he should have tried anyway, and that he was a bad person for not doing so. Which is sensationalist.

Admittedly your last post toned it down a little but your previous post did say that "22 seconds and not a single person was in sight when the picture was taken? It just makes me feel sick." To have such an emotive response, that implies blame should be placed on those who witnessed the incident, without having the full facts first, is at least a little bit sensationalist.

Well, I guess when it comes to the Internet sometimes agreeing to disagree is the best you can hope for.

You're right about one thing though, there is a lot of conjecture which is why I'm not ready to start definitively blaming those involved. From the evidence I've seen, I believe that the people could have helped but without all the facts it's mostly speculation.

 

[Hop-along Nussbaum]

People are concerned with the photo, and how it reflects our society. That's not the problem. The problem is that this person's FIRST REACTION was to grab their camera, rather than offer help.

THAT is what's wrong with our society. That the photo got published at all is not the problem. The fact that the photo even exists in the first place is the problem, and is indicative of why we are fucked as a species.

 

[Scow2]

It's not the use of the photo that offends me, it's the fact the thing exists at all that sickens me. And I hope the photographer comes up with better reasoning for their lack of actions other than "I was hoping my flash would alert the train driver" because that is some Grade-A bullshit right there.

People are concerned with the photo, and how it reflects our society. That's not the problem. The problem is that this person's FIRST REACTION was to grab their camera, rather than offer help.

THAT is what's wrong with our society. That the photo got published at all is not the problem. The fact that the photo even exists in the first place is the problem, and is indicative of why we are fucked as a species.

The actual answer for why he took a picture is, "Because that's what I'm trained to do. There was no thinking involved at all."

Journalistic photographers are trained to not intervene with newsworthy events, and only record them. The reason for that is a bit complex, but it has several reasons. The gist of the matter is that it keeps the photographer safe and neutral in dangerous circumstances. They are trained to only act (in any way other than taking pictures) if it's safe to do so without putting themselves, their camera, or their neutrality at risk (Giving food to starving kids is okay. Getting killed trying to stop an assault isn't). It also allows them to capture powerful moments on film, instead of letting a sudden event go unrecorded.

It's not all gloom - often, after taking the picture (Which takes only a split second), the photographer WILL intervene and try to help... but that requires them to violate their training, which, again, says they should only record events, not intervene. Go back and look at the linked article about people who've taken pictures of catastrophe. It offers some interesting insights.

There are far too many people who try to be heroes, but end up only getting themselves killed as well. Photographers/Journalists are trained NOT to be that person. I can't say it's a good thing, but I understand where its coming from.

 

[Austin Mcgough]

I guess that guy really wanted a Sub...

No that was dumb let me try again.

He must of had a great track record...

Hmm, that wasn't very good either. Give me a few minutes I'll come up with some better ones.

About whether this is ethical or not? Well it isn't considering that douche bag with the camera was more interested in taking a picture instead of helping the guy.

oh come on, he was totally stuck in a rut! ( sweet jebbus i'm going to hell for that)

 

[tippy2k2]

snip

snip

Not to call you guys out (that's not my intention) but you two are the few with a different opinion here so naturally, I'm curious

Both of you said that the photo's existence alone is offensive (most people I've seen in here are OK with the photo but not the caption) but I'm looking for a smidge clarification with a "perfect" scenario (perfect in quotations...you'll see why soon enough):

Let's say that we have a similar situation on the streets. A car at an intersection has lost control and is a second away from crushing someone. The photographer notices this from the 3rd floor of the apartment. Should he still snap this picture?

It seems like the problems you both had was the idea that the photographer sat back instead of helping but in that scenario I have given, there is no question that he could do nothing about it. Are you still against the photo existing?

 

[IckleMissMayhem]

snip

snip

Not to call you guys out (that's not my intention) but you two are the few with a different opinion here so naturally, I'm curious

Both of you said that the photo's existence alone is offensive (most people I've seen in here are OK with the photo but not the caption) but I'm looking for a smidge clarification with a "perfect" scenario (perfect in quotations...you'll see why soon enough):

Let's say that we have a similar situation on the streets. A car at an intersection has lost control and is a second away from crushing someone. The photographer notices this from the 3rd floor of the apartment. Should he still snap this picture?

It seems like the problems you both had was the idea that the photographer sat back instead of helping but in that scenario I have given, there is no question that he could do nothing about it. Are you still against the photo existing?

Firstly, sorry for the delay in replying. Secondly, BINGO! That was exactly my (main) problem with the NYP photo/cover. That's not to say the Post obviously need to swallow a massive "Show-some-fucking-respect-you-vultures" Pill (patent pending, thank-you-very-much!)

OK, in your situation, the existence of the photo wouldn't bother me anywhere near as much, but I wouldn't be happy if it was published in such a sensationalised [sub](is that even a word? it's been a bloody long tiring weekend my end!)[/sub] manner, and only if it was published with the consent of everyone involved (in this case, the victims family, and the driver of the car, plus any witnesses, especially if they were shown in the picture)

 

[wrightguy0]

journalistic integrity is not something you find between the covers of the new york post, as a newscorp publication it is devoid of that.

though i believe the LA papers that ran the Black Dahlia story on January 15-16 1947 were worse.

there's sensationalist "yellow" journalism in every age, as pitiful as it is it still clings to life, not matter how many of us stand for truth and integrity

 

[sXeth]

Yeah, its tough to tell whether he could've concievably done anything (depending how long it took him to get that picture, if he didn't just fluke it). By the point of the picture, that train is way too close to do anything. Though theres no apparent motion blur to indicate he'd been moving at all.

Though flashing the train is just stupid and sounds made up (also, the picture is centered quite a bit in front of the train, it'd be aimed farther down the track if he was trying to flash the train). It'd make a lot more sense to try and get a picture of the pusher if anything.

The headline (and even the front page status is just sleezy sensationalism, but the picture in itself isn't an uncommon phenomenon. I remember writing a small article myself on how many Tweeted pictures there were during Sandy of things where people obviously weren't helping and even potentially in the way (A standout was one from inside a stairwell where patients were being evacuated.)

 

[Tiger King]

"Other people on the platform also rushed to help"....

There is a good 4 or 5 foot of platform infront of that guy on the track and not a person in sight .... they didn't rush that fast did they.

Obviously the photographer must have been traumatised by that event. I mean, not only did he get a perfectly placed picture (while rushing to help and trying to attract the drivers attention with the flash .... *cough*bollocks*cough*) but he was so devastated about being unable to help that he sold that photograph to rid him of it's shock.

He also managed to get on the front page, which i'm sure eased the poor photographers troubled mind.

What a dick.

all of this
who the hell takes a photo when something like this happens?

 

[MammothBlade]

Oh come on, why are people squeamish about a picture of someone about to die?

The picture doesn't lie. And that's more important than protecting the poor, oversensitive public from facing graphic reality. My only problem with it is the sensationalist headline.