Subway Death

[Damaris]

(Please place where appropriate, Ms. Mod.)


Has anyone else been following this story?

Suspect confesses in pushing death of Queens dad in Times Square subway station (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/nightmare_on_subway_tracks_GgvCtkeJj6cTeyxHns2VNP)

After having words, a homeless man pushed another man onto the tracks of a subway just before a train came into their station. The other man died of his injuries a few hours later. But the real controversy surrounding the death focuses on a freelance photographer's images snapped during the fray, from when the victim was first thrown onto the tracks to the attempted treatments after he was struck. The photographer dropped the photos at the New York Post offices and one was used as the December 4th cover, which also stirred a great deal of controversy. The whole situation is very sad, but I wondered what SKMBers thought of it all.

[staropeace]

I think that even if the photographer couldnt reach the man to save him, he has one hell of a jaded personality to stand there and snap pics of the poor buggers death.

[Moderator]

That's what I was thinking at first, too, but the article said he was taking pictures as he was running toward the man and hoping the flash from his camera would catch the attention of the train conductor.

[Shasta]

The photographer claims that he was just activating the flash so that the train would see a commotion. He also claims that there were plenty of people closer that could have helped.

What really bothers me is that all the places that "condem" publishing the photos show it as well.

I feel awful for the man and his family and I think is all too much.

[fushingfeef]

That's the NY Post for you. They have no qualms when it comes to sensationalism.

[not_nadine]

Well if he wasn't "running and snapping pictures" he sure came up with a good story for it.

[Sundrop]

The photographer claims that he was just activating the flash so that the train would see a commotion. He also claims that there were plenty of people closer that could have helped.

What really bothers me is that all the places that "condem" publishing the photos show it as well.

I feel awful for the man and his family and I think is all too much.

The photographer claims this, and yet he had no problem selling the photos.....
Just my opinion, but the only people who should have seen those photos are law enforcement personnel.

I feel so bad for the family of this poor man.

[GNTLGNT]

...I think it's a complete/tragic "balls up"...muckraking, sensationalistic media and legendary Big Apple callousness...anybody remember the infamous Kitty Genovese case?....

[Moderator]

...I think it's a complete/tragic "balls up"...muckraking, sensationalistic media and legendary Big Apple callousness...anybody remember the infamous Kitty Genovese case?....

Yup, old enough to have heard it at the time. :down:

[Spideyman]

There are heros, and then there are bystanders.

[mjs9153]

Can't buy his story,that is a pretty nicely framed,focussed,steady shot,NOT something you would see from a camera held by a running person..the flash,well it lights the foreground,would think he is fairly close like within ten/twenty yards,even professional high end flashes have limitations as to range..

[bryras]

There is something to be said about discretion. Put the camera down. I realize that people are out there to protect themselves and survive, but come on! Do something!

I'm probably going to end in the same way that Chris Chambers did. I can't help it though.

[Becks19]

He knew what he was doing when he took that picture. He made a decision that the picture was worth more than a life. It makes me wonder how he sleeps at night?

[Moderator]

I'd have to read the article and perhaps others again to see if there's information I missed, but it sounds like this happened very quickly and that in spite of there being a number of people on the platform no one was able to reach him in time to pull him back onto the platform. I'm inclined to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt on not being able to help the victim. How many iconic pictures have we seen on newspaper and magazine covers over the years that beg that same question--why didn't the photographer do something instead of just take a picture? It's easy to judge without having the benefit of being there and knowing all that was going on. I do wonder what the point was of having the picture (and similar ones) published. What does that benefit and who does it hurt, e.g. the family of the victim?

[bryras]

Ms. Mod,

You are right. There are a ton of iconic pictures and films. I know that people can't do everything. It was probably just second nature for the photographer to take the pictures. I just never would have thought about using a camera in the first place. I'm just sorry that this tragedy happened and that there are pictures of it.

[Moderator]

Becks, just want to add that I wasn't singling you out for response. Yours wasn't the only post wondering why the photographer didn't do more and I'd been meaning to post my reply but hadn't gotten it formulated as to just what I wanted to say until now.

[blunthead]

I heard a commentator on the tragedy, someone learned in behavior of humans, say that individuals in groups tend not to react in such circumstances as they do alone, that in groups an individual tends not to be the first to step forward. So, if there'd been just one observer maybe that person would have tried to help.

I believe it's too easy for me to judge how others should behave when I'm not faced with the same circumstances with its awful traumatic demands. Thankfully I haven't been in such circumstances, so I don't know what I'd do, but I imagine I'd respond the way most human beings do in groups. Maybe had there been a veteran present that person would've responded differently due to military programming. Maybe not.

I imagine the photographer was kind of panicking, and responding how he was programmed to as a photographer. It's not like at these times humans are thinking with brains and morals. Their bodies employ "flight or fight", an autonomic, or spontaneous, response designed for self-protection. Hindsight's 20/20.

[Todash]

I'd have to read the article and perhaps others again to see if there's information I missed, but it sounds like this happened very quickly and that in spite of there being a number of people on the platform no one was able to reach him in time to pull him back onto the platform. I'm inclined to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt on not being able to help the victim. How many iconic pictures have we seen on newspaper and magazine covers over the years that beg that same question--why didn't the photographer do something instead of just take a picture? It's easy to judge without having the benefit of being there and knowing all that was going on. I do wonder what the point was of having the picture (and similar ones) published. What does that benefit and who does it hurt, e.g. the family of the victim?That's the difference between journalism and sensationalism. What's the point? What's the benefit? Sometimes a picture or story can straddle the fence, and the two are not mutually exclusive. Believe it or not, journalists really do struggle with this stuff, and the questions do not always have easy answers. Lo these many years ago, I started out as a journalism student and remember having these sorts of discussions in and out of class. It was hard stuff. Our profs tried to help us figure out a good framework to answer the questions, but still we didn't all agree.

My vote on this is that the story needed to be told and that, although if the photographer had remained outside the story (if, for example, there were people trying to rescue the man and no question of him being able to help), then the photograph would have been sensationalism. However, when you insert the photographer in the story, as has been done here, at THAT point the photograph IS important because it helps us judge the veracity of his claim. And then THAT is part of a bigger story around how we define journalistic ethics. And that is a story that always needs to be explored.

[Shasta]

Sunny - I'm not saying I agree with him. Just saying what he said.

Spidey - In this case it appears there were only bystanders. It looks like there are very few heroes in the world. :down:

[Shasta]

I'd have to read the article and perhaps others again to see if there's information I missed, but it sounds like this happened very quickly and that in spite of there being a number of people on the platform no one was able to reach him in time to pull him back onto the platform. I'm inclined to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt on not being able to help the victim. How many iconic pictures have we seen on newspaper and magazine covers over the years that beg that same question--why didn't the photographer do something instead of just take a picture? It's easy to judge without having the benefit of being there and knowing all that was going on. I do wonder what the point was of having the picture (and similar ones) published. What does that benefit and who does it hurt, e.g. the family of the victim?

I couldn't agree with more. I don't know, I wasn't there. I hope I would have done something but I have 100% frozen in an emergency and I know what an awful feeling it is. I wish I was hero, but sometimes the natural instinct is to just freeze.

By all accounts I read it took about 20 seconds. That is very, very fast.

My problem, like you state, is that the picture is being published over and over again.

[Todash]

I couldn't agree with more. I don't know, I wasn't there. I hope I would have done something but I have 100% frozen in an emergency and I know what an awful feeling it is. I wish I was hero, but sometimes the natural instinct is to just freeze.

By all accounts I read it took about 20 seconds. That is very, very fast.

My problem, like you state, is that the picture is being published over and over again.
It's horrible that that man died, Shasta. But it's important that we are having this discussion, and we wouldn't be having it without the photograph. Just something to think about.

[Spideyman]

Techno dinosaur- If one goes to this link for the Today show on NBC
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/?_r=1

on the right side top is says:Watch past broadcasts. Click and go to Wed. 12/6. The 7th video has an interview from the photographer.

[Shasta]

It's horrible that that man died, Shasta. But it's important that we are having this discussion, and we wouldn't be having it without the photograph. Just something to think about.

That is very true. My husband and I have this conversation all of the time - the man in Vietnam who was filmed getting shot in the head, the people jumping from the WTC, bodies floating after Katrina. I can't stand it. It makes me cry, makes me upset, gives me anxiety. My husband says I am way too overly empathetic, as I cry at least six times a day on average (yes, we've kept track). (And I know some of you may think I'm not because I can't be harsh - but I am empathetic, just intolerant of stupidity!) Anyway, I think this stuff shouldn't be shown but he thinks it's history. He thinks not showing it is hiding the truth.

My thing is that I can only imagine the families and the people who were there. Why should they be forced to see these things over and over again?

[Becks19]

Becks, just want to add that I wasn't singling you out for response. Yours wasn't the only post wondering why the photographer didn't do more and I'd been meaning to post my reply but hadn't gotten it formulated as to just what I wanted to say until now.

That never crossed my mind at all. I know better than that.:grinning: I think I am looking at the situation in a What I would do sort of light. I would try to help at all costs. I can understand the photographer knowing that he didn't have the time to pull the man up, or knowing he couldn't reach him. I do imagine it happened very fast. (perhaps a blessing for this poor man) What I don't understand is the photographer deciding to take a shot of a man seconds from death. I've felt for the family ever since I saw it.

[mjs9153]

I agree that it is good we can discuss this rationally,without deciding one person's viewpoint is more valid than the next..all I know,from being a photographer at a certain level,his statement that he was running at the person,firing the flash,seems spurious to me,given the quality of that frame shown on the front page..and where are the ones directly before,and after,which would show joggling of the frame if he was running,no matter how good an image stabilization program on the camera..frankly I feel the guy is rationalizing,which I don't blame him for,cause he is under intense pressure from people as to why he didn't react.I think he learned a valuable lesson here.Shasta you are a good person to be upset about those images,however,they are apples to oranges as far as this is concerned..have seen the raw video of the nam shooting,it was swift and you do not want to intervene there or you will def forfeit your life I would believe,just like interposing yourself between jumpers at nine eleven and the sidewalk.Just different circumstances..if there is a bad guy here,it is the managing editor,cause they see all kinds of salacious stuff and should know better than to publish this poor man perishing.. the bar is always being lowered as to what is acceptable,as long as papers are sold..I wonder how his family would feel if that was him struggling for life on the tracks as that train bore down,and he is sold for entertainment purposes on the front page of a paper..not very cool,my friend..:glare: