Subway Death

[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.

[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.