Photo of man about to be killed by subway train

[Jennasis]

Originally Posted by Geoff_M

Perhaps you can name for me the name of the woman that Stanley Forman photographed falling to her death in an apartment fire after the fire escape balcony she was standing on collapsed in Boston in 1975... and explain to me her national significance? Forman, a photographer for the Boston Herald American, was awarded the first of his two Pulitzer Prizes for this equally horrifying photo.

Well, I wasn't around in '75 nor was I familiar with that photo. I also am not on the Pulitzer committee so I have no voice in what they choose. Was the photo published on the cover of a prominent newspaper?

if so then i would be equally disgusted in it's use on the cover...even with a pulitzer. It isnt the photo, it was how it was used.

[SaraJayne]

Originally Posted by FireDancer

But could it? He was thrown in front of a train just before it entered the station and was too dazed to quickly get up and get to the side of the tracks where someone could reach him. From what I've heard, and it admittedly could be incorrect, it was unlikely anyone could help him without turning this from one death into multiple deaths.

It is unlikely the man taking this photo had any more chance of saving the victim in this photograph than the man who took this one yet I have never once heard anyone say he should have put the camera down and tried to put out the fire instead.

I wasn't there, so I don't know. But I *want* it to be different, kwim?

I have not looked at the photo, but I can imagine what it looks like from descriptions and my mind screams "why doesn't someone help him?!"

Like I said, it's more of a visceral reaction seeing a photo like that, not based on the reality of the situation.

[FergieTCat]

Originally Posted by Jennasis

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. here's the story with photo attached if you haven't seen it WARNING: it is very disturbing! http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...een-published/

The photographer is receiving a LOT of heat about not doing something to help the man (and yes, the man who was pushed onto the tracks died). They did catch the guy they believe pushed the man.

So, what do you think about the Post using that pic on the cover? What do you think about the photographer?

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?

[nmmom95]

Originally Posted by SaraJayne

I wasn't there, so I don't know. But I *want* it to be different, kwim?

I have not looked at the photo, but I can imagine what it looks like from descriptions and my mind screams "why doesn't someone help him?!"

Like I said, it's more of a visceral reaction seeing a photo like that, not based on the reality of the situation.

This.

Realistically, there was probably no time or safe way to save this poor man.

[Geoff_M]

Originally Posted by Jennasis

Well, I wasn't around in '75 nor was I familiar with that photo. I also am not on the Pulitzer committee so I have no voice in what they choose. Was the photo published on the cover of a prominent newspaper?

if so then i would be equally disgusted in it's use on the cover...even with a pulitzer. It isnt the photo, it was how it was used.

From the article I linked (emphasis mine):

This photo, shot by Stanley Forman on July 22, 1975, in Boston, Mass., earned the photographer a Pulitzer Prize. The controversial image filled most of the front page of the Boston Herald American and a hundred other newspapers across America. The two girls were trying to escape a fire in their apartment building when the fire escape collapsed. The 19-year old girl died on impact, but the younger girl survived. The immediate impact of the photo was negative the paper was accused of sensationalism, but the national outrage ignited by the publishing of the photo resulted in the passing of much-needed updated fire escape legislation across the country

The Forman example is just one that I'm aware... Here's another national news example from 2003... Were you around when this happened and it was featured in newspapers and national news programs? Was the doomed pizza delivery man Brian Wells a national figure?

[crazyme5kids]

Originally Posted by eliza61

And there is a world of difference in a photojournalist and anyone with an Iphone or for that matter a snarky tabloid photographer.

There is a good chance that a photojournalist would NOT have released the picture. They understand the difference between wanting to document a story and wanting to make a buck off of some one elses tragedy.

Photojournalist want their pictures to do more than sell a newspaper.

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?

[SaraJayne]

What is the headline? I did not click on the link, so I didn't see it.

[Jennasis]

Originally Posted by Geoff_M

From the article I linked (emphasis mine):The Forman example is just one that I'm aware... Here's another national news example from 2003... Were you around when this happened and it was featured in newspapers and national news programs? Was the doomed pizza delivery man Brian Wells a national figure?

Sorry. I'm unfamiliar with that photo and the accompanying story. It doesnt negate my feelings on the subway photo or other photos used in a similar manner.

[crazyme5kids]

"Pushed onto the subway, this man is about to die." Then in huge letters DOOMED.

[SaraJayne]

Originally Posted by crazyme5kids

"Pushed onto the subway, this man is about to die." Then in huge letters DOOMED.

Ugh.

[luvmy3]

Originally Posted by crazyme5kids

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]

Originally Posted by luvmy3

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]

Originally Posted by Jennasis

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]

Originally Posted by FergieTCat

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.