New York Post's Subway Death Photo: Was It Ethical Photojournalism?

Dec 04, 2012 17:28

When a news photographer witnesses a tragedy in the making, is his obligation to intervene or to document it?

That question has cropped up anew following the New York Post’s publication, on its front page, of a photo taken moments after a man was pushed onto subway tracks, and moments before he was hit and killed by an oncoming train.

Read more... )

photography, ethics

Leave a comment

kaelstra December 5 2012, 03:46:19 UTC
It's a horrifying picture, but pictures can be deceptive; after all, we don't know how far away the cameraman was when he took the pictures. He could have been very far away.

That headline is fucking horrible, New York Times, smdh at you, gd.

Reply

trivalent December 5 2012, 03:49:17 UTC
Just, redirect the hate at New York Post, owned by a good friend Murdoch. NYT has its own issues, but this ain't one of them.

Reply

kaelstra December 5 2012, 04:39:20 UTC
Woops, my bad! I got them mixed up! D:

Reply

cinnamontoast December 5 2012, 14:23:58 UTC
The Post was hateful and awful long before Murdoch. I had two friends murdered in the '80s. The headlines in the Post were lurid and frothing. The story described my friends and their murders in ways that highlighted innocuous details which made the murder seem conspiratorial, when in reality, it was nothing more than an interrupted robbery. It was horrible enough without The Post. They pile misery upon misery and always have.

The Post has always been the newspaper of choice for voyeurs, gossipmongers, and screeching hardasses. Decent people don't read The Post.

Reply

imnotasquirrel December 5 2012, 03:51:25 UTC
Even if he was close to the victim, it looks like it all happened in a matter of seconds. So he might not have been able to do anything regardless.

That said, ngl, I tend to side-eye in general when a person's first instinct upon witnessing a tragedy is to whip out their camera. And then to sell/give it to the Post? I get that he's a photojournalist, so it's probably what he's used to doing whether it's a tragic situation or not. (I do think his explanation afterwards kinda sounds like bullshit.)

I'm more mad at the NYP though tbh. Don't hate the New York Times, they didn't do anything!

Reply

nutmegdealer December 5 2012, 04:06:18 UTC
this.

Reply

squeeful December 5 2012, 04:16:29 UTC
The photographer claims that he already had his camera out and was using it, and that catching the photo in question was almost incidental/accidental.

Reply

imnotasquirrel December 5 2012, 04:18:49 UTC
I know that's what he's saying, I'm saying that I don't buy it.

Reply

ericadawn16 December 5 2012, 04:29:27 UTC
I agree, how is a flash anything like a signal flare or warning light?

Reply

kaelstra December 5 2012, 04:39:52 UTC
And how's the engineer supposed to know that it's directed at him and not just someone taking pictures on the walkway? It seems like weird logic.

Reply

teacoat December 5 2012, 04:44:31 UTC
It is if it goes off repeatedly in short succession, which is what he was doing. The NYP article says that the conductor actually did slow down because of the flashes, it was just too little too late.

Reply

teacoat December 5 2012, 04:44:39 UTC
The NYP article says that the conductor actually did slow down because of the flashes, it was just too little too late.

Reply

imnotasquirrel December 5 2012, 04:53:21 UTC
It's the Post that's saying this, though. For all we know, the conductor could have slowed down because they saw all the people waving their arms or whatever.

For the record, I don't blame the photographer for not trying to assist the man. I probably would have frozen like a deer in headlights myself. I'm just not inclined to believe what he's saying about how he only took the pictures accidentally.

Reply

kaelstra December 5 2012, 04:54:34 UTC
Yeah, there's realistically no way that by the time the conductor saw anything, that he could have stopped in time. Those suckers take awhile to come to a full stop, or even slow down, really.

Reply

imnotasquirrel December 5 2012, 04:57:51 UTC
That's why I always go to the very far end of the platform. I'm incredibly paranoid about falling on to the tracks, especially since I don't have the best sense of balance. Plus, I have zero arm strength to pull myself back up. So if I'm at the far end of the platform and I fall on to the tracks, I have a better shot of reaching the tunnel and staying out of the train's reach.

...and typing that out makes me realize just how paranoid and ridiculous that sounds.

Reply

ms_maree December 5 2012, 05:04:02 UTC
No, you aren't paranoid. I always stand way back when the train comes in. In the train station I use, a year back a guy's wheelchair was caught up in the side of an express train because he was too close to the edge, he was dragged and then crushed between the platform and the train.

Nightmare fuel to think of it.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up