Distasteful New York Post

[TheHuckster]

Subway horror: Why didn’t photog lend a hand?

It's very much possible that there was truly nothing the photographer could have done to save this victim in this tragic and pointless act of violence. However, I still find it quite distasteful that the photographer would see this unfold before his eyes and instinctively reach for the camera. If it were me I would probably either look away from the inevitable gruesome scene or if I had the adrenaline do whatever I could to help save his life. And to be honest, I really don't know what my reaction would be... but I know for a fact I wouldn't take a photograph with the idea the sensational media will pay me big bucks for it.

And shame on The New York Post for such a distasteful headline which was solely meant to give only the most tasteless readers of the publication a reason to purchase their tabloid. For all the history of similarly tactless manure The Post is known for, this comes to the forefront as the worst by far in recent memory.

[Nekojin]

In fairness to the photographer, that's exactly what they've been training for, sometimes for most of their adult lives - they're there to observe and photograph, and their reflexes in getting their camera out and taking the picture quickly can make the difference between having a good shot, or having nothing. If you wanted to put a particularly negative spin on it, you could say that he's a professional voyeur - his entire job is "look, but don't touch."

But to put it in perspective, why didn't anyone else on the subway platform help the victim? Surely the photographer, the assailant, and the victim weren't the only people there.

[Ginger Tea]

There are far too many unknown variables involved with this photograph
The speed of the train and how quickly it reached the now deceaced man, although at a platform, if it is not due to stop there it is probably going at a fair whack, if stopping, the driver could have seen the man in time, although no reports of it actually breaking that I read.

Zoom lense gets you in on the action, he could have been further away than the photograph sugests meaning that even if he went to move he would have been too late.

He was quoted that he used his camera flash to alert the driver, not sure how effective that would be, the article asked why he didnt wave the driver down, again speed of the train and a man waving his arm might have been waving at a friend behind the drivers view, trains are not known for being modes of transport one simply flags down.

Everyone is raging about his inactions calling him scum of the earth, yet no one gives a hoot about the one that actually pushed him into the tracks in the first place.

[Andara Bledin]

Another possibility is that the photog in question already had his equipment out and ready and the act of taking the pictures took only a few seconds, whereas dropping his equipment to help the guy would have been too little, too late.

^-.-^

[Panacea]

It doesn't matter. The photographer was not obligated to put himself at risk to save this man . . . and it would have been a risk. He could easily have been pulled onto the tracks himself, much like trying to save a drowning man by getting into the water.

If he had tried to save the man, he would have been a hero.

That he did not try does not make him a villain.

[TheHuckster]

Everyone is raging about his inactions calling him scum of the earth, yet no one gives a hoot about the one that actually pushed him into the tracks in the first place.

Everyone gives a hoot, that's why it's not spoken of. Everyone is in agreement that the guy who pushed him into the path of a subway is off his rocker and is outraged. This picture, however, generates more controversy because, as this thread indicates, people are not in agreement if, upon witnessing this taking place, it's appropriate to profit from it by taking a photo and having it posted on the front page of a tabloid with a sensational headline.

But to put it in perspective, why didn't anyone else on the subway platform help the victim? Surely the photographer, the assailant, and the victim weren't the only people there.

There are news articles which mention there were other witnesses. I'm sure they were simply in shock, as I would have been.

That he did not try does not make him a villain.

I understand that. I just find it bizarre that his immediate reaction would be to take pictures. To me it's the equivalent of a subway musician not stopping his playing after witnessing this or even just having no reaction at all.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I understand that. I just find it bizarre that his immediate reaction would be to take pictures. To me it's the equivalent of a subway musician not stopping his playing after witnessing this or even just having no reaction at all.

No more bizarre than a trained soldier immediately dropping to into cover when he thinks he's heard gunshots.

No more bizarre than a trained firefighter placing the back of his hand to the door of a room he thinks might be engulfed in flames.

No more bizarre than an artist or writer pulling out a sketch book or note book when they see something that sparks inspiration or a solution to an issue they might have.


I hear people all the time, when they read my stories, or see my friend's photos, say, "I never would've thought of that." or "I never would've begun to think to take a picture of this!"

That's because our minds are trained to react differently than the way other people might react. A trained martial artist would react to someone attacking them by perhaps doing a shoulder throw or a quick jab to the throat, a trained cop would probably draw their weapon/stun gun, an untrained civilian might start screaming and running away or punching blindly.

[TheHuckster]

No more bizarre than a trained soldier immediately dropping to into cover when he thinks he's heard gunshots.

No comparison. That's an issue of self-defense and safety. Not taking a photo for profit.

No more bizarre than a trained firefighter placing the back of his hand to the door of a room he thinks might be engulfed in flames.

No comparison. That's another issue of self-defense and safety. Not taking a photo for profit.

No more bizarre than an artist or writer pulling out a sketch book or note book when they see something that sparks inspiration or a solution to an issue they might have.

I hardly think any artist or writer who witnesses this would actually take out a pen and paper at the scene while it's happening and take notes for inspiration. They might find inspiration from their experience afterwards, but that's not the same as taking a camera out at the scene of the crime, taking pictures, and then selling it to a shitty tabloid newspaper that is going to write "DOOMED" over it... and then, after controversy ensues try to cover yourself by claiming you were simply trying to use the flash to signal the operator to stop the train.

[HYHYBT]

Consider how little time there really is. *Most* people's brains aren't really going to process what's going on fully and get their bodies in motion to do anything useful. If anybody acts that quickly, it will be without thinking. Why *wouldn't* a photographer's automatic reaction be to take a picture? It's not like a drawing; it might well even be over and done before the person has time to think "I shouldn't do that right now."

It's not like an artist or writer, because drawing and writing take *time.* As with photography, it might be someone's first instinct, but unlike photography, it would take long enough even to begin to begin that thought would intrude (and also the moment would be over.)

[AmbrosiaWriter]

It's not like an artist or writer, because drawing and writing take *time.* As with photography, it might be someone's first instinct, but unlike photography, it would take long enough even to begin to begin that thought would intrude (and also the moment would be over.)

That's not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that an artist or writers immediate response might be to whip out something to take a note down.

I carry tons of mini-notebooks on me in easy to grab locations (like a pocket) because when something happens and my brain comes up with a reaction to it I need to get it down. Before I even think about my reaction my notebook is already in my hand and my pencil is writing it down. Many of my artist friends can get a rough sketch down in seconds before they've even truly thought about the reaction they're having to what sparked the inspiration.

So no, there really is not time for thought to intrude for myself or many of my artistic friends. We're throwing stuff down on paper without processing it a lot of the time until later and we look over our notes for the day.


----
It's about what the initial response is to do, so my examples are very much comparable. A soldiers initial response is to duck and cover. A firefighter's initial response is to use the BACK of the hand to check for heat. A photographer's initial response is to--- you guessed it! Take freaking pictures.

What he did afterward is up for debate on whether or not someone else would do it. But the initial response to record what is happening through photography is very common to photographers. It's a bit of a huge assumption that when he whipped out his camera to take the picture he was thinking ehehehe yay I'm going to be so rich! He was probably thinking, at the time, !!!!!! while his photographer's instincts had him snapping away. Afterward he probably realized "Oh wow I can make money off this" then had to back pedal after that fact.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I understand that. I just find it bizarre that his immediate reaction would be to take pictures. To me it's the equivalent of a subway musician not stopping his playing after witnessing this or even just having no reaction at all.

There's a show I watch sometimes called "What would you do?" where they set up situations that could potentially require intervention to see how the public will respond to them.

In one case they did a set up where three or four kids were bullying another in a public park. More people stopped to take pictures and record video on their phones than actually tried to help the victim.

It's sad that people are now more interesting in finding the next Youtube sensation than actually helping their fellow man.

[siead_lietrathua]

a bunch of films have broached this subject, diary of the dead and cloverfield are two that pop immediately to mind.
when you become accustomed to being behind a lens, shooting DOES become a reflex. in the sense of shock at what he was seeing, that reflex would have kicked in, just as other people may have screamed, or turn away from the scene, or started towards the incident. it doesn't make him a terrible monster to have a reaction appropriate to his trained profession. unless they are also going to condemn every other person on the platform for having their natural reactions to a scene of unexpected chaos.
also, being behind a lens created a sense of detachment from what is going on, a sense of surrealism. people who photograph accidents, death, and etc from a news perspective often have to develop that detachment from death and chaos or it would drive them mad. a big reason as to why i never followed through with my degree in the field is because i couldn't handle it.

edit: the photographer WAS running to the scene, btw, as a bunch of other people were. noone got to the deceased in time.
http://www.latinospost.com/articles/...s-accident.htm
seems most outrage i'm finding elsewhere is less at the photographer, and more at the newspaper for publishing a tasteless image.

[Panacea]

I understand that. I just find it bizarre that his immediate reaction would be to take pictures. To me it's the equivalent of a subway musician not stopping his playing after witnessing this or even just having no reaction at all.

He may have started taking pictures when the commotion began, before the man fell into the tracks. By then it was too late to change his course of action.

No comparison. That's an issue of self-defense and safety. Not taking a photo for profit.

No comparison. That's another issue of self-defense and safety. Not taking a photo for profit.

Actually, there's every comparison. A martial artist or a cop is trained to take specific actions in response to certain stimuli. If someone grabbed me, my immediate reaction would be to do a takedown. There would be no thought process involved.

Ditto a photographer. They're trained to take photos, not save lives. His actions were consistent with his professional training. That you find that repulsive is not his fault.

[TheHuckster]

seems most outrage i'm finding elsewhere is less at the photographer, and more at the newspaper for publishing a tasteless image.

I think that reflects my outrage as well. I'm still a bit perplexed by a photographer going for a shot, but if you all say they are so trained to react in that way, then fine.

I do think the New York Posts's cover image and caption is tasteless, nevertheless.

[HYHYBT]

AmbrosiaWriter: I apologize for not making it clear enough that I agree with you and disagree with TheHuckster. I was trying to use your same example in a slightly different way, not contradict it.