Photo of man about to be killed by subway train

[luvmy3]

I would say that these pictures do more than sell newspapers. Photojournalists sell photos to papers all the time. Many times very disturbing (like these) photos.

I wonder if these photos were published by a different paper, with a different headline, if people would have the same reaction. I know we, or most would still find the photos disturbing, but could it be the wording of the Post's headline that makes it more disgusting for some people?

The link is for the NY Times, and since they are showing the photo of the front page, they are also publishing it. Apparently though that isn't disturbing
This is their headline

Should This Subway Photo Have Been Published?

 

[Jennasis]

The link is for the NY Times, and since they are showing the photo of the front page, they are also publishing it. Apparently though that isn't disturbing
This is their headline

It IS disturbing, and I said as much. But since you want to argue, YES, I find it more disturbing on the front page of the paper. Dont know why.

 

[Tigger&Belle]

I don't have an issue with the picture being taken, however I do have an issue with it being published on the front page of a newspaper. The headline is horrendous and shocking, but of course that's what they were likely hoping for.

 

[luvmy3]

It IS disturbing, and I said as much. But since you want to argue, YES, I find it more disturbing on the front page of the paper. Dont know why.

Not arguing, that post wasn't directed at you, it wasn't even about you. I was just pointing out that the NY times has no problem publishing it to ask if it was right for the NY Post to publish it. Seems a bit hypocritical don't you think.

 

[sam_gordon]

I completely agree with your first paragraph. I never read the Post for that reason alone.

I wish there were some way that photographer could be held liable for his actions, but NOT being a good samaritan is not against the law (as far as I know).

I don't understand how he could live with himself. It borderlines on sociopathic; does he have no conscience?

If you're willing to hold the photographer liable, you need to hold everyone in the station liable. Personally, I'd rather assume the photographer WAS too far away to do anything than assume he was close enough and sacrificed the victim's life to get a picture.

 

[Geoff_M]

For starters I am absolutely disgusted (but not surprised) that the New York Post would use that photograph on the cover. The Post is just a tabloid piece of trash.

Look, you're perfectly entitled to your feelings about such photos. But in looking at your OP, it seems pretty clear what your real problem is. But in order to make this rant against this particular publication which you personally dislike, you have to ignore the history of photojournalism.

The photo you highlight is a very powerful photo. You can bicker about the sensational headline, but the image does a much, much better job of highlighting the horror of what happened then any written story could convey to the reader. This sort of thing is what makes photojournalism so powerful... and there are countless examples like this from across the history of published media.

 

[FireDancer]

Not arguing, that post wasn't directed at you, it wasn't even about you. I was just pointing out that the NY times has no problem publishing it to ask if it was right for the NY Post to publish it. Seems a bit hypocritical don't you think.

Yes, it is extremely hypocritical. I always get a laugh when the news feigns offense or disgust at something someone else does while doing the exact same thing in reporting the incident.

If the Post publishing the photo was wrong, which I don't necessarily agree with, the Times publishing the photo in reference to the Post's publication is equally wrong since it is the exact same thing. Anyone who publishes the picture, whether in the paper, on the television, or on the web, while chastising the Post for publishing it are hypocrites. Anyone who is upset at the Post but isn't equally upset at every other publication, website, and news station showing the picture while commenting on it is equally a hypocrite.

 

[FergieTCat]

If you're willing to hold the photographer liable, you need to hold everyone in the station liable. Personally, I'd rather assume the photographer WAS too far away to do anything than assume he was close enough and sacrificed the victim's life to get a picture.

I am thinking of the Kitty Genovese case, when people heard her screaming for help, but no one did anything. Maybe there was nothing to be done in this case, but the photograph doesn't show anyone making an attempt either.

As I said, there are no laws about not being a Good Samaritan, but it makes me ill to think that not only did this photographer witness another human being on the verge of being killed, but he took pictures. He may have been trained to be a photojournalist, but it just sounds so cold-blooded.

I'm not a fan of the NY Post or Rupert Murdoch.

 

[crazyme5kids]

The link is for the NY Times, and since they are showing the photo of the front page, they are also publishing it. Apparently though that isn't disturbing
This is their headline

Sorry, I thought she wanted to know what the Post's headline was. I'm not sure what you are questioning though. If you are asking what my opinion is regarding the Post's headline is, yes it does bother me. Or, are you asking me if I find the picture disturbing? If that is the case, the answer is yes, it is disturbing to me.

 

[crazyme5kids]

luvmy3, sorry, I have a little mind fog going on today. Just realized what you meant. Yeah, the Times questioning the publishing of the photo is hypocritical.

 

[eliza61]

As I said, there are no laws about not being a Good Samaritan, but it makes me ill to think that not only did this photographer witness another human being on the verge of being killed, but he took pictures. He may have been trained to be a photojournalist, but it just sounds so cold-blooded.

I'm not a fan of the NY Post or Rupert Murdoch.

And maybe the general public has reached a point where we are sick of the "cold bloodiness, lack of compassiona and violence as sport" mentality.

Yeah ok, maybe "everyone" does it and maybe just maybe that's the problem. we're sick of everyone doing it for profit, we're sick of seeing beat up people and youtubing it.

I for one am very glad there is an uproar. I'm just totally sick of this mentality of let me make a profit without giving a rat's (*&^ to anyone elses feelings.
And all me hypocritical but I see a huge difference in this photo and the photography of WWII. That's just me.

 

[Geoff_M]

Perhaps people should look at all of the facts before making a declaration of depraved indifference on the part of the photographer:

Mr. Abbasi said he was wearing a 20-odd pound backpack of camera gear for an assignment, and was standing near the 47th Street entrance to the platform when he saw the man fall on the tracks.

“Nobody helped,” he said. “People started running away.”

“I saw the lights in the distance,” signaling a subway’s approach, he said, so he started firing off flashes on the camera — 49 times in all, he said — as a means of warning the driver.

“I was not aiming to take a photograph of the man on the track,” he said, later adding that his arm was fully outstretched, the camera far from his face.

“If I had reached him in time, I would have pulled him up,” he said. At one point, the man said to have shoved Mr. Han came toward Mr. Abbasi, he said, so he backed up against a wall, still flashing his camera. He estimated the victim was on the tracks for 10 or 15 seconds before he was struck.

 

[crazyme5kids]

And maybe the general public has reached a point where we are sick of the "cold bloodiness, lack of compassiona and violence as sport" mentality.

Yeah ok, maybe "everyone" does it and maybe just maybe that's the problem. we're sick of everyone doing it for profit, we're sick of seeing beat up people and youtubing it.

I for one am very glad there is an uproar. I'm just totally sick of this mentality of let me make a profit without giving a rat's (*&^ to anyone elses feelings.
And all me hypocritical but I see a huge difference in this photo and the photography of WWII. That's just me.

Maybe you feel there is a huge difference between this photo and those of WWII because of the time between them? You can be more emotionally detached from the pictures of WWII than these pictures. I'm not saying you don't feel any emotions when you see historical pictures, but most people react to events that happen in their lifetime differently from those of the past.

As far as the photographers go, they got paid to take those pictures too.

 

[FireDancer]

I am thinking of the Kitty Genovese case, when people heard her screaming for help, but no one did anything.

The reality and the mythology of the Genovese case are quite different. The initial reports of both the number of witnesses and that no one did anything have both been proven inaccurate.

 

[Jennasis]

The photog also said there were people closer to the victim during the incident and many stayed behind after and took cell phone pics and video of the dead body.

 

[donaldlovesdaisy]

Oh my word how horrible for the man and for all those who had to witness this. I can't imagine why no one would help him.

 

[npmommie]

I didn't look at the story or the picture. too disturbing for me. but to post it here keeps it going. people who never would have saw it now have seen it.
quite disturbing if you ask me to post something like this on a family disney board.
sorry. but I got points once for a funny harmless comedy video link.
but disturbing pictures that really bother people are ok.

I feel very badly for that persons family as well as the driver that hit him.

 

[threeboysmom]

The photo is tragic. The headline is LOATHSOME.

I'm thoroughly disgusted with not so much the photographer but whoever it was that captioned that tragic photo and put it on the front page.

It makes me sick.

 

[Princess Dolly]

And maybe the general public has reached a point where we are sick of the "cold bloodiness, lack of compassiona and violence as sport" mentality.

Yeah ok, maybe "everyone" does it and maybe just maybe that's the problem. we're sick of everyone doing it for profit, we're sick of seeing beat up people and youtubing it.

I for one am very glad there is an uproar. I'm just totally sick of this mentality of let me make a profit without giving a rat's (*&^ to anyone elses feelings.
And all me hypocritical but I see a huge difference in this photo and the photography of WWII. That's just me.

No, the public hasn't reached that point of being sick. What many people want is to not be reminded of the cold, hardness that exists in the world. Easier to bury our heads in the sand and not think about how bad humanity can be at times. The world can be a cold, cruel place. It's called reality.

 

[Jennasis]

I didn't look at the story or the picture. too disturbing for me. but to post it here keeps it going. people who never would have saw it now have seen it.
quite disturbing if you ask me to post something like this on a family disney board.
sorry. but I got points once for a funny harmless comedy video link.
but disturbing pictures that really bother people are ok.

I feel very badly for that persons family as well as the driver that hit him.

Nobody has to see it. They can just not click the link (which has a clear warning).