The photo isn't 'bad' but that headline is awful!
While the photo is disturbing, and I agree the Post is a crappy paper, I don't have a problem with the photographer taking it and documenting what happened. That's what photojournalists do, take pictures to document events for the world to see.
I guess I feel there's a difference between the photo of a random person about to die a horrible death and a story thats of national signifigance like of war or an assassination attempt etc.
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.
For me, what makes this photo worse than war photos or other tragedies that have already happened is in this case, the outcome could have been different.
But that is still someone's loved one whether it effects the world or just them.
Maybe part of the problem is that people are desensitized because we do see those types of photos in the media, so when it is a random person, its not a big deal.
(not saying its not a big deal, just saying that is the perception of photos like this when they are published).
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... 37 years ago.I guess I feel there's a difference between the photo of a random person about to die a horrible death and a story thats of national signifigance like of war or an assassination attempt etc.
Geoff_M said: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.
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.
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/2012/12/04/should-this-subway-photo-have-been-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 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.
From the article I linked (emphasis mine):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.
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?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
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.
Geoff_M said: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?
"Pushed onto the subway, this man is about to die." Then in huge letters DOOMED.