what A ****-sorry mods just had too- see some guy on the train track's in need of help and what do you do take your camera out and try make a buck I feel sorry not only for the guy But all the passengers on the train and the driver
Poll: Journalistic Ethics (AKA Death photo on New York Post cover)
- Thread starter tippy2k2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd go with a combination of the first two options-- it's within their right; too much is a tricky thing to pin down; they should be ashamed, IMHO
I wish I could boycott them or something, but I've never even considered buying one of their papers before...
Honestly, my opinion is that they didn't go nearly far enough. But that was because I was expecting a different kind of death photo. This is just tasteless and doesn't really serve any purpose (being on the front cover).
What I was expecting was a photo from US military actions elsewhere (since we're causing a hell of a lot of death). Americans today don't have any idea that our government is murdering thousands of innocent people every year with our current "War" on "Terror" (and the ones that do don't care), and I wish that the paper media and television media in the US would remind Americans more often so we could stop slaughtering people.
What I was expecting was a photo from US military actions elsewhere (since we're causing a hell of a lot of death). Americans today don't have any idea that our government is murdering thousands of innocent people every year with our current "War" on "Terror" (and the ones that do don't care), and I wish that the paper media and television media in the US would remind Americans more often so we could stop slaughtering people.
I can understand when something like this happens during the war: you may take as many pictures as you want and soldiers must not harm you, but in exchange you are forbidden from taking any actual role in the conflict. This I get.
However, in the civil surrounding, you should at least TRY to help a person before anything else.
However, in the civil surrounding, you should at least TRY to help a person before anything else.
The use of the image is disgusting, the image itself is not, I do feel sorry for this man though.
My understanding on American law may be limited, but isn't there something about failing a rescue attempt in an accident scenario can result in being liable and can be taken to court by the state? I remember a friend of mine from Boston telling me about it, although I'm not sure if I understand it correctly.
In this scene though, a lot of people freeze up, your brain shuts down and forces you to watch. I've been in a first aid situation and while I was attempting to stop bleeding (a woman had been stabbed, the guy was found and put in prison), I was screaming to the people staring at the situation for help and it takes a sec for things to sink in sometimes. Because I have had some training and such, I react quicker than some, but there's still a shock delay to things like this.
But in this train situation, there's a danger element too. What if he accidentally in panic pulls you down too or something? There's a lot to consider.
My understanding on American law may be limited, but isn't there something about failing a rescue attempt in an accident scenario can result in being liable and can be taken to court by the state? I remember a friend of mine from Boston telling me about it, although I'm not sure if I understand it correctly.
In this scene though, a lot of people freeze up, your brain shuts down and forces you to watch. I've been in a first aid situation and while I was attempting to stop bleeding (a woman had been stabbed, the guy was found and put in prison), I was screaming to the people staring at the situation for help and it takes a sec for things to sink in sometimes. Because I have had some training and such, I react quicker than some, but there's still a shock delay to things like this.
But in this train situation, there's a danger element too. What if he accidentally in panic pulls you down too or something? There's a lot to consider.
US papers generally won't show bodies. This is due to a variety of reasons, a big one being that family and friends not learn of a loved ones' death by seeing it on the front page. This photo here is different, like it or not. It doesn't depict a body and would probably be run by most papers around the country. The headline is just fucking awful, but New York Post, i guess.
I'm fine with the picture being where it is for the reason it is there... but the overlay text is in very poor taste. This should be printed with a sort of somber severity, not the sensationalist bullshit they plastered all over a picture of a man about to die. That's downright disrespectful, and I'd like to spit in the face of the person who designed it.
But then, I suppose for most people in the US, violent death is very "scary" and "other". For me it's much more familiar.
But then, I suppose for most people in the US, violent death is very "scary" and "other". For me it's much more familiar.
Had time to at least try and save the guy, but took a photo instead...
That is just terrible in every way.
The photographer can't even use the excuse of 'it all happened so fast', because they took a fucking goddamn photograph.
Bloody hell.
That is just terrible in every way.
The photographer can't even use the excuse of 'it all happened so fast', because they took a fucking goddamn photograph.
Bloody hell.
Well. I think they just got their ratings go up though. No such thing like bad publicity, and all.
Seriously messed up. Also, um, just what the hell happened to the other guy, the one who pushed this one on the tracks? I'd think that's a relevant bit of information, rather than the doomy dooms of doom.
Seriously messed up. Also, um, just what the hell happened to the other guy, the one who pushed this one on the tracks? I'd think that's a relevant bit of information, rather than the doomy dooms of doom.
Jacco said:
How long does it take to lift a camera from around your neck and push a button?Daystar Clarion said:
A second? Half a second?
How long would it take to run the 7 odd metres to the man, and get into a position where he might have been able to pull him up?
5 seconds? 6 seconds?
Seen as someone actually pushed this man onto the track, do you not think bystanders might be a bit intimidated, and uneasy with going within pushing distance of the track?
You can't get an accurate idea of distance from a photo anyway, that's not even including the fact that the image could have been zoomed in since it was shot.
The bottom line is that one picture is no way near enough evidence to make accurate judgements on any parties involved. And by doing so you are guilty of the same sensationalist behaviour that led the newspaper to print the headline "DOOMED" on said photo.
Hardly, I'm judging the action, not the person, I don't know the photographer, and I'm not going to pretend I do, but we are all judged by our actions.Smeatza said:
If the first thought going through your head in this situation is 'huh, better get a picture of this'...
Well.
Bloody hell that is digraceful! The use of that picture and the damned caption is disrespectful and not really necessary. I feel for that man, his family, the driver and the passengers on that train. It's disgusting that someone would push another onto train tracks over a dumb argument.
Now I'm no lawyer so take anything I say with a grain of salt (and for God's sake, don't say "tippy2k2" said so in a court of law!):chozo_hybrid said:
It's kind of the opposite. "Good Samaritan" laws exist so that if I attempted to help Han get off the train track but ended up somehow...shoving him deeper in? I'm not sure how I could have made it worse trying to help but go with it...that I would NOT be liable because I was attempting to assist in a situation where no authority was around to do it for me. Except for the pusher (see my update in the first post), no one else would be liable for standing there watching.
In the (incredibly tiny) defense of the photographer, I used to live in New York City and even pulling into the stations, those subways are going pretty fast. Based on the photographers spot, I sincerely doubt he was going to get there and he decided to use the situation.Daystar Clarion said:
With that said, the plethora of excuses and BS the photographer was spitting out makes me thing that he would have stood there to take pictures even if the "Austin Powers bulldozer" scene was happening in front of him...(except instead of standing there for comedic effect, the guy is unconscious or something).
I actually don't have a big problem with the photo itself. It's that caption. Also, of all the possible reactions to a man about to get crushed by a train, this guy took a picture? Rush to help? Great. Freeze up? Understandable. Take a picture? Ugh...
Now, as someone that's never lived anywhere with a subway/train transit system, or whatever it's called, I'm left wondering why there aren't more safety measures in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening?! Or are they there and I'm just missing something?
Now, as someone that's never lived anywhere with a subway/train transit system, or whatever it's called, I'm left wondering why there aren't more safety measures in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening?! Or are they there and I'm just missing something?