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

[Smeatza]

snip

Whether he would have been able to actually help is irrelevant. Those were seconds that may have saved his life and they may not have. But the fact he chose to take a picture instead of ATTEMPTING to help is disgraceful.

So what you're saying is, that even if he KNEW for a FACT that he could not help him NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIED.
He still should have attempted to help him, instead of doing the only productive thing he could do and make a record of the incident?

What sensationalism, having your judgements ruled by emotion.

 

[mad825]

That isn't news, it's sensationalism. Distasteful sensationalism might I add.

 

[Private Custard]

All this makes me think is that Paul Verhoeven was right with RoboCop, way back in 1987. The news reports and general mood of the entire movie are becoming more and more realistic.

Me, I don't agree with this cover. I think that with a little tact, this could have been done better. Maybe some blurring and a more tasteful headline would be a good start.

Although, I don't remember too many people complaining about these images,

I guess it's the up-close and personal nature of the shot that's the kicker.

 

[Canadish]

'If it bleeds, it leads'.
Isn't that a quote from Bowling for Columbine? It wasn't a new sentiment at that point either. This is standard fare, just so long as we can keep serious real issues like drone strikes on civilians and internet regulation out of the papers. /cynical

You. You I like.

Anyway, nothing to say that hasn't been said. Tabloid paper, bystander effect yadda yadda.

I feel bad for the poor bastard hit by it.

I'd just be careful with news like this, there has definitely been more then one attack on the press as of late and more talk about limiting the freedom of the press then I would like to hear.

Spoiler

Also, couldn't help but think of Gantz.

 

[DugMachine]

I doubt the guy could have been saved but you could have done SOMETHING. Fucking A, what type of world do we live in where some ass stands there to take a picture for the New York fucking Post, one of the shittiest papers to every exist?

 

[Jacco]

snip

Whether he would have been able to actually help is irrelevant. Those were seconds that may have saved his life and they may not have. But the fact he chose to take a picture instead of ATTEMPTING to help is disgraceful.

So what you're saying is, that even if he KNEW for a FACT that he could not help him NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIED.
He still should have attempted to help him, instead of doing the only productive thing he could do and make a record of the incident?

What sensationalism, having your judgements ruled by emotion.

You keep throwing around that word sensationalism. Do you even really know what it means?

Emotion has nothing to do with it. You never know for a fact in a situation like that. Not until you look back on it. None of us know whether he could have been saved. But the fact remains that no one even tried despite even though there was time to take a picture.

 

[DugMachine]

Although, I don't remember too many people complaining about these images,

I guess it's the up-close and personal nature of the shot that's the kicker.

But nothing in the world would have saved those people. This man on the track, we don't know how fast the train was going, maybe it was fast, maybe slow but somebody should have done SOMETHING. Seeing the whole platform clear of people and a dude cashing in on this tragic death is just plain awful.

Also, 9/11 is a major historical event for the USA. This poor guy on the tracks will be forgotten by everyone but his friends and family within a week.

 

[Susan Arendt]

I... cannot help but find that amusing in a macabre sort of way.

In a nutshell:
Photo: OK
Words: Not OK

As for whether the photographer or anyone else there could have helped the guy, no idea, I wasn't there. It would depend on how much time passed between him being pushed and getting hit by the train. It may only have been a few seconds, not enough time for anyone to react, let alone help.

My analysis as well. The photo is one of those one-in-a-million chance shots that photographers luck into sometimes. He was already taking photos, which is how he happened to get this. The entire event took place over a matter of seconds, perhaps even split seconds - it's unlikely anyone there had time to react. (Speaking with folks who've witnessed people falling into the tracks, when something like this happens, people rush to help the person up. That this poor man died likely means it all happened in a few blinks.)

Would I run it? Yep. It's tragic, but it's news. But the "doomed" at the bottom is disgusting and disrespectful - a story on how often this happens, and what to do if you ever see it happening, would be a more appropriate direction.

 

[IamQ]

While I'm not against them showing pictures like these in the newspaper, I'm hoping that when we see them once in a while, it is in a situation where that was all they could do. Not like here when they decided to stop and take a picture instead of helping the poor sod.

 

[KeyMaster45]

"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.

According to the article I read on Yahoo the uncropped image shows everyone huddled in fear as far from the tracks as possible. It's the bystander effect, the more people around the easier it is for people to just assume someone else will be the hero. It's kind of a fucked up phenomenon that leads to horrifying stuff like this. Still I find it hard to place so much blame squarely on the photographer. It's easy for us to sit here behind our computers and say we'd act heroically, certainly we all hope we'd act heroically, but the sad truth is that the majority of us would be at a loss of what to do. People don't think straight in moments like those, and even if his story isn't true that he was actually trying to signal the driver I don't find it hard to imagine that he thought he was about to get a once in a lifetime photo of someone saving a life. Unfortunately he got this, and its a provocative photo that highlights an unfortunate truth of how people act when faced with an immediate crisis; like stupid irrational animals caught between self-preservation and doing the right thing.

Frankly I believe his story of trying to signal the driver with his flash. Granted the action doesn't make much sense, but in the heat of the moment it probably made plenty of sense; logic and reason take a coffee break when the adrenaline starts flowing.

 

[Hop-along Nussbaum]

There is no such thing as a true journalist anymore. All news media have their own points of view, and spread the news their way. MSNBC on the left, FoxNews on the right, and other networks all over in between. These days, any news story can be spun for every audience. Like religion, there is a news outlet for every possible taste, and the media outlets want to make sure that they cover every market. It doesn't matter what your political, religious, economic or other persuasion is. There is a media outlet for you. Sure, they call it news. But it's not. It's propaganda that caters to individual tastes. This is the most significant reason that our country is so vastly divided.

The last true "journalist" was Walter Cronkite. He reported the news and the day's events on the evening program, and never expressed any kind of political leanings or pandered to a particular bunch (that I am aware of). On the one rare occasion that he showed any emotion, it was when a sitting president had just been killed. And that wasn't because JFK was a Dem or a Repub. It was because the elected leader of our nation was murdered. But he still reported the event, and he never embellished on it.

There are no more real journalists, anymore. Journalists report events. They do not insert their personal opinions or political points of view. Since real journalists no longer exist, or have at least transformed into something more perverted, the question of ethics is relative to what they have become.

As for the NYP's photograph posting, I personally believe it was in poor taste. That was not something that the public at large "needed" to know about. A story in the paper would have sufficed. The photo was for shock value, and to increase sales.

And that is all any media outlet exists for anymore. Sales. Whether on TV or in print. They sell advertising based on the particular market. Ever watch FoxNews during the daytime? All you ever see is wheelchair and AARP ads. Same thing MSNBC does, but towards a different market.

The point is that there are no more true journalists. Journalists have integrity. These days, it's just entertainment. And the ethics for the entertainment industry are vastly different than those of what was once the news industry.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

As sad as that image is, it is undoubtedly an image that sells - a fact that sickens me to no end. When a person's actions dictate that money becomes more of a priority over someone's life (or death, in this case), I view that person with no respect for the entirety of my life. That the image was used in such a manner by one of Rupert Murdoch's tabloids is no surprise. The man, and all that he runs, is an utter disgrace to life on this planet.

Nowadays, it's just infotainment, a phrase used by one of the last remaining journalists IMO:


I believe that journalists can help a situation, if there is sufficient time and resources available. Though it's debatable whether or not the journalist from the subway could've helped, there ARE examples when journalists can. Hopefully, when those times arise, the humanity part supercedes the journalist part.

Spoiler: The image this journalist snapped made the journailst commit suicide 3 months later due to depression. NOT FOR THE WEAK HEARTED!

 

[chozo_hybrid]

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.

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!):

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.

Ah, okay. Cheers for clearing that up.

 

[alandavidson]

"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.

You win this thread.

My thoughts (on the article, because the above quote sums up my thoughts on the photographer and those on the platform)

The Post could have run this picture on an inside page, and not splashed "doomed" on its headline. That just screams of poor taste and judgement. There are ways to handle death photos, and I think prime examples would be Falling Man from 9/11 and Baylee Almon from the Murrah bombing. Those photos were printed without gaudy headlines and because symbols of nation grief.

It's all in how you approach it. What The Post did was just a ploy to get attention and readers, and it backfired.

 

[deathzero021]

as much as I like to defend freedom of press/speech... this is really low. This is even depressing to a guy with DEATH as his avatar and username. Completely disgusting behavior that a company would sink so low. these @$$holes must be getting desperate seeing as nobody buys paper news anymore.

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

The New York Post is the Daily Mail of the U.S. I'm not at all surprised.

 

[Smeatza]

snip

Whether he would have been able to actually help is irrelevant. Those were seconds that may have saved his life and they may not have. But the fact he chose to take a picture instead of ATTEMPTING to help is disgraceful.

So what you're saying is, that even if he KNEW for a FACT that he could not help him NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIED.
He still should have attempted to help him, instead of doing the only productive thing he could do and make a record of the incident?

What sensationalism, having your judgements ruled by emotion.

You keep throwing around that word sensationalism. Do you even really know what it means?

Emotion has nothing to do with it. You never know for a fact in a situation like that. Not until you look back on it. None of us know whether he could have been saved. But the fact remains that no one even tried despite even though there was time to take a picture.

One way to take a sensationalist standpoint is to concentrate only on what appeals to the emotions, while ignoring the facts, reality of the situation or your own potential ignorance.

Witness' seem to think people tried to help him, yet you claim nobody did. Appealing to emotions while ignoring the facts - sensationalist.
The photographer claims he was running towards the man (obviously not in a position to help directly) and so did his best to alert the driver with the flash on his camera. You have no evidence to think this is not the case yet you claim so, for emotive reasons - sensationalist.

I really have to ask you, do you know what sensationalist means?

 

[Iyon]

snip

Whether he would have been able to actually help is irrelevant. Those were seconds that may have saved his life and they may not have. But the fact he chose to take a picture instead of ATTEMPTING to help is disgraceful.

So what you're saying is, that even if he KNEW for a FACT that he could not help him NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIED.
He still should have attempted to help him, instead of doing the only productive thing he could do and make a record of the incident?

What sensationalism, having your judgements ruled by emotion.

You keep throwing around that word sensationalism. Do you even really know what it means?

Emotion has nothing to do with it. You never know for a fact in a situation like that. Not until you look back on it. None of us know whether he could have been saved. But the fact remains that no one even tried despite even though there was time to take a picture.

One way to take a sensationalist standpoint is to concentrate only on what appeals to the emotions, while ignoring the facts, reality of the situation or your own potential ignorance.

Witness' seem to think people tried to help him, yet you claim nobody did. Appealing to emotions while ignoring the facts - sensationalist.
The photographer claims he was running towards the man (obviously not in a position to help directly) and so did his best to alert the driver with the flash on his camera. You have no evidence to think this is not the case yet you claim so, for emotive reasons - sensationalist.

I really have to ask you, do you know what sensationalist means?

It's not just Jacco claiming no one tried to help the man though. It seems like there are some conflicting reports, but even the photographer himself has said nobody tried to pull him up.

The crowd waiting for the train fled from Han

http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2012/12/06/ny-posts-subway-death-photo-a-real-world-final-exam/

or

"The people who were standing close to him ... they could have moved and grabbed him and pulled him up. No one made an effort," [Abbasi] added.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/05/new-york-subway-push-arrest.html

One thing that does seem to be consistently reported though is that there was an estimated 22 seconds from the time he was pushed until he was hit by the train. Now, I wasn't there so obviously it's impossible to know for sure, but 22 seconds and not a single person was in sight when the picture was taken? It just makes me feel sick.

 

[Smeatza]

snip

Whether he would have been able to actually help is irrelevant. Those were seconds that may have saved his life and they may not have. But the fact he chose to take a picture instead of ATTEMPTING to help is disgraceful.

So what you're saying is, that even if he KNEW for a FACT that he could not help him NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIED.
He still should have attempted to help him, instead of doing the only productive thing he could do and make a record of the incident?

What sensationalism, having your judgements ruled by emotion.

You keep throwing around that word sensationalism. Do you even really know what it means?

Emotion has nothing to do with it. You never know for a fact in a situation like that. Not until you look back on it. None of us know whether he could have been saved. But the fact remains that no one even tried despite even though there was time to take a picture.

One way to take a sensationalist standpoint is to concentrate only on what appeals to the emotions, while ignoring the facts, reality of the situation or your own potential ignorance.

Witness' seem to think people tried to help him, yet you claim nobody did. Appealing to emotions while ignoring the facts - sensationalist.
The photographer claims he was running towards the man (obviously not in a position to help directly) and so did his best to alert the driver with the flash on his camera. You have no evidence to think this is not the case yet you claim so, for emotive reasons - sensationalist.

I really have to ask you, do you know what sensationalist means?

It's not just Jacco claiming no one tried to help the man though. It seems like there are some conflicting reports, but even the photographer himself has said nobody tried to pull him up.

The crowd waiting for the train fled from Han

http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2012/12/06/ny-posts-subway-death-photo-a-real-world-final-exam/

or

"The people who were standing close to him ... they could have moved and grabbed him and pulled him up. No one made an effort," [Abbasi] added.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/05/new-york-subway-push-arrest.html

One thing that does seem to be consistently reported though is that there was an estimated 22 seconds from the time he was pushed until he was hit by the train. Now, I wasn't there so obviously it's impossible to know for sure, but 22 seconds and not a single person was in sight when the picture was taken? It just makes me feel sick.

I love how you post links to articles you cite as evidence. Yet when one actually reads the articles you find it is much less clear cut than you present.

Extract from first article "But maybe people were afraid that Naeem Davis, who pushed Han onto the tracks, would push them too. Maybe the floor would have been too slippery ? look how glossy it is in the light ? and they would have fallen too while trying to pull Han out. Maybe?"

So the writer of the first article is quite prepared to admit he does not have the full facts and cannot morally judge those involved (at least not yet). You have condemned these people for their actions without having all the facts. You've taken a sensationalist standpoint from a non-sensationalist article.

As for the second article, well I could explain the phenomenon where the more people that witness a crime the less likely anyone is to intervene but I doubt you'd care, I could say how this article conflicts with a number of other reports but you've already admitted that yourself. I could appeal to your common sense and ask is it really reasonable to expect your untrained average joe to act rationally in a life and death situation where the adrenaline is pumping, the flight or fight response has been triggered and rational thought isn't really possible anymore, but you'd probably say that has nothing to do with anything.

I think your empathy for the poor man is urging you to condemn all involved in an emotive fervor, and so you cherry pick articles and bits of articles that support your condemnation, while casting aside all reasonable doubt.
The same kind of thing sensationalist media does to sell more papers.

 

[Iyon]

snip

Whether he would have been able to actually help is irrelevant. Those were seconds that may have saved his life and they may not have. But the fact he chose to take a picture instead of ATTEMPTING to help is disgraceful.

So what you're saying is, that even if he KNEW for a FACT that he could not help him NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIED.
He still should have attempted to help him, instead of doing the only productive thing he could do and make a record of the incident?

What sensationalism, having your judgements ruled by emotion.

You keep throwing around that word sensationalism. Do you even really know what it means?

Emotion has nothing to do with it. You never know for a fact in a situation like that. Not until you look back on it. None of us know whether he could have been saved. But the fact remains that no one even tried despite even though there was time to take a picture.

One way to take a sensationalist standpoint is to concentrate only on what appeals to the emotions, while ignoring the facts, reality of the situation or your own potential ignorance.

Witness' seem to think people tried to help him, yet you claim nobody did. Appealing to emotions while ignoring the facts - sensationalist.
The photographer claims he was running towards the man (obviously not in a position to help directly) and so did his best to alert the driver with the flash on his camera. You have no evidence to think this is not the case yet you claim so, for emotive reasons - sensationalist.

I really have to ask you, do you know what sensationalist means?

It's not just Jacco claiming no one tried to help the man though. It seems like there are some conflicting reports, but even the photographer himself has said nobody tried to pull him up.

The crowd waiting for the train fled from Han

http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2012/12/06/ny-posts-subway-death-photo-a-real-world-final-exam/

or

"The people who were standing close to him ... they could have moved and grabbed him and pulled him up. No one made an effort," [Abbasi] added.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/05/new-york-subway-push-arrest.html

One thing that does seem to be consistently reported though is that there was an estimated 22 seconds from the time he was pushed until he was hit by the train. Now, I wasn't there so obviously it's impossible to know for sure, but 22 seconds and not a single person was in sight when the picture was taken? It just makes me feel sick.

I love how you post links to articles you cite as evidence. Yet when one actually reads the articles you find it is much less clear cut than you present.

Extract from first article "But maybe people were afraid that Naeem Davis, who pushed Han onto the tracks, would push them too. Maybe the floor would have been too slippery ? look how glossy it is in the light ? and they would have fallen too while trying to pull Han out. Maybe?"

So the writer of the first article is quite prepared to admit he does not have the full facts and cannot morally judge those involved (at least not yet). You have condemned these people for their actions without having all the facts. You've taken a sensationalist standpoint from a non-sensationalist article.

As for the second article, well I could explain the phenomenon where the more people that witness a crime the less likely anyone is to intervene but I doubt you'd care, I could say how this article conflicts with a number of other reports but you've already admitted that yourself. I could appeal to your common sense and ask is it really reasonable to expect your untrained average joe to act rationally in a life and death situation where the adrenaline is pumping, the flight or fight response has been triggered and rational thought isn't really possible anymore, but you'd probably say that has nothing to do with anything.

I think your empathy for the poor man is urging you to condemn all involved in an emotive fervor, and so you cherry pick articles and bits of articles that support your condemnation, while casting aside all reasonable doubt.
The same kind of thing sensationalist media does to sell more papers.

I never claimed there weren't reasons people didn't come to his aid. Merely that they were able to, but didn't. That was the purpose of the quotes I provided. I wasn't trying to support any sort of condemnation because I don't condemn those involved.

I fully understand that there are a huge number of factors to take into account and it's impossible to know exactly what happened without having been there. However, what evidence we do have seems to suggest that people were in a position to help and, for whatever reason (perfectly legitimate reasons included), they did not. It's highly unlikely these people decided not to help him out of malice so I don't wish to condemn them simply for their inaction, however, I do find it disappointing and sad that nobody was able to act.

I'm certainly not being sensationalist and I'm certainly not being irrational. If anything, I'm trying to promote a bit of rationality. You claimed that there was no evidence to suggest nobody helped the man and criticized Jacco for ignoring facts. Yet if you had taken the time to do some research yourself, you would have realized that there was in fact plenty of evidence suggesting people could have helped.