Man pushed onto NYC subway tracks (a question of journalistic ethics?)

linger

linger

Community Member
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
6 (w/strong 2) sp/sx
Here's a short rundown of what happened

The thing I really wanted to ask about (and maybe this isn't the right section--move me if it isn't!) is what you think about papers publishing photos of the man about to be hit by the train. Apparently a few have (some, like the NY Post, as the cover-photo of the story). They're doing so under the guise of "helping find people who can identify the assailant," but the assailant isn't in any of those photos. Just a man about to die. One of the pictures is actually of him clinging to the side of the platform, trying to get up, as the train approaches (check out the NY Post if you want). Photos from a surveillance camera exist that include the suspect they're looking for; it isn't really a matter of not having any other photos to run.

It's bothering me a lot at the moment.

What do you think? Is it cool for newspapers to run those photos (or photos like this in general)?
 
I almost posted something sorta similar a couple weeks ago where they posted a picture on facebook of a terrible auto wreck where someone was obviously killed, a completely crushed car flipped upside down and underneath a semi with the caption "Accident Snarls Rush Hour traffic on 1-70"

No, I don't like it. It's bothering me a lot too because, obviously psychopath behavior is becoming normal. He was there, he watched him die. So, I'm curious why he didn't feel a little more compassion for the dead man and more respect for his last moments. More respect for the reader too I mean god damn I didn't need any more help to be put right into that poor man's shoes. Maybe he wanted us to feel as horrified as he did when he watched it all happen. I don't know though.
 
Last edited:
Also, the picture I saw is him close...he is snapping a picture but not grabbing the man and helping him up? Horrifying. Why didn't he help him up instead of try to stop the train? I don't buy the story he was flashing his lights to stop the train. Psychopath.
 
There's no good reason for them to do it, but it's probably for those shock views which probably = money.

On the other hand, it's New York. I don't feel so shocked about the lack of compassion.
 
I dont see how it is disrespectful.
 
Perhaps the photographer will be put in a similar situation someday and get a picture taken of them before their ticket gets punched.
 
Most the stuff that is in newspapers i don't even consider news

This is all to lower the vibrational energy field

It is to crank up the blind fear (undirected and unanchored fear that cannot lead to positive action....not all fear is bad...in fact it is a survival mechanism when used properly)

The news is filled with negaitivity but it never discusses the whys and it never discusses positive action that can be taken it is simply designed to grind down the human spirit

Don't buy their papers, and ignore negative stories that don't inform you about dangers in a way that can help you face them

If you want to keep people slaves then the best way is to keep them afraid but uninformed about what the danger is or about what they can do about it
 
I saw it covered on the Today Show this morning.
They showed the 2 of them beforehand, and then a still shot of the person after he was pushed onto the track area about to be hit by the train.
The one good thing was showing the picture of the person that did this, and asked for anyone with info to come forward.

I can't imagine seeing this go down, and not try to help get him out off the track area. Taking pictures would be the last thing on my mind. Could this photographer be charged under some sort of Good Samaritan law violation?
Using his flash to alert the engineer is a lame excuse in my mind, and seems an after thought to try and cover his ass.
If anything, it probably helped to blind the engineer's vision.
 
[video=youtube;46bBWBG9r2o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46bBWBG9r2o&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
 
I guess sensationalism trumps ethics these days. As far as the actual cameraman, I experienced something similar in which a car plowed into an adjacent storefront to where I was eating. The first thought that entered my mind when I finally realized what had happened and walked outside was "Holy shit I've got to get a picture of this!" as there was a gigantic gaping hole in the storefront and racks all askew inside. As I was going to get my camera I then realized that though quite a few minutes had passed and there were a lot of people around, I hadn't even considered checking to see if everyone was ok, so I put the camera back. It's crazy to think that I was initially so detached that I didn't even consider the fact that I was there, as if it never even happened if it wasn't on camera. As far as the situation in the story, I find it more disturbing to think of someone pulling out a camera to capture a death as it is happening, or even just to film the fight, and then not even going to intervene when it becomes apparent that the situation has progressed to the point of a potential fatality. I'm not really in a position to pass judgment on the cameraman though. Anyway, I do agree that ethically I am bothered by the idea of printing a picture of someone about to die, and only that person, when the premise is supposed to be identification of the attacker.

Slightly off-topic, but this is what I noticed.

"allegedly emotionally disturbed"
"schizophrenic off his meds"
"mental health problems"

What bothers me is how these labels are used so consistently, in 3 out of the 4 deaths mentioned on that page. It contributes heavily to negative stereotypes of people with mental illness.
 
MindYourHead said:
I saw it covered on the Today Show this morning.
They showed the 2 of them beforehand, and then a still shot of the person after he was pushed onto the track area about to be hit by the train.
The one good thing was showing the picture of the person that did this, and asked for anyone with info to come forward.

I can't imagine seeing this go down, and not try to help get him out off the track area. Taking pictures would be the last thing on my mind. Could this photographer be charged under some sort of Good Samaritan law violation?
Using his flash to alert the engineer is a lame excuse in my mind, and seems an after thought to try and cover his ass.
If anything, it probably helped to blind the engineer's vision.
Click to expand...

As far as accountability is concerned, in the majority of the US, good Samaritan laws only apply to those who have a caretaker relationship with the individual or are directly responsible their illness/injury (except in Minnesota and Vermont, where duty-to-assist is actually a thing.) So, while the photographer is immoral, possibly sociopathic, and definitely a disgusting excuse for a human being (along with his editors), he can't be held legally accountable for his inaction. Duty-to-assist laws are something that really need to be instituted at the federal level; it goes against everything that capitalism stands for ("Wah, make them help themselves!") but some people could use a dose of "Be good or get judicially destroyed."

As far as the photo being published as the cover for the Post, that can easily be explained away as tabloid sensationalism. Anyone who considers the NY Post to be a piece containing even a modicum of journalistic integrity needs to reevaluate what they consider journalism. It is one of the oldest and most widespread sources of sensationalist garbage in print; take into account that they are owned by News Corporation, who also own Fox. They survive as an editorial because they do not subscribe to any traditional journalistic beliefs, their lack of a guiding political ideology, and their willingness to do anything to survive as a newspaper.
In short, they, like most other entertainment companies, tune their material as their target demographic changes, and that demographic just happens to love to hear about violence. That is a phenomenon I have never been able to fully understand.
 
Does it matter?
News outlets will keep exploiting and sensationalizing tragedy instead of providing quality news so long as people keep buying the shit they hawk.
 
acd said:
Does it matter?
News outlets will keep exploiting and sensationalizing tragedy instead of providing quality news so long as people keep buying the shit they hawk.
Click to expand...

and when newspapers are free?
 
SealHammer said:
When their sponsors pull their support.
Click to expand...

:sigh: could potentially come from taxes too but I have no idea. I know some TV channels are funded this way but I don't watch TV.
 
Ada said:
and when newspapers are free?
Click to expand...

When are newspapers free to print legitimate news instead of sensationalizing tragedy and agenda setting bullshit?
When our society is not governed by money, but by democracy, I guess.. And when people are more interested than being informed rather than being entertained or titillated..
Or do you mean, when people don't have to pay to obtain the newspaper?
Someone is always paying, regardless. And it still goes back to the first part of what I said, then.
 
[MENTION=564]acd[/MENTION] I know someone always pays. It was more rhetorical, so pardon me! I agree with you on the society part, it upsets me that many people I encounter want only entertainment instead of thinking a little.

I'm posting from my phone atm, sorry for any possible mistakes :redface:
 
SealHammer said:
As far as accountability is concerned, in the majority of the US, good Samaritan laws only apply to those who have a caretaker relationship with the individual or are directly responsible their illness/injury (except in Minnesota and Vermont, where duty-to-assist is actually a thing.) So, while the photographer is immoral, possibly sociopathic, and definitely a disgusting excuse for a human being (along with his editors), he can't be held legally accountable for his inaction. Duty-to-assist laws are something that really need to be instituted at the federal level; it goes against everything that capitalism stands for ("Wah, make them help themselves!") but some people could use a dose of "Be good or get judicially destroyed."

As far as the photo being published as the cover for the Post, that can easily be explained away as tabloid sensationalism. Anyone who considers the NY Post to be a piece containing even a modicum of journalistic integrity needs to reevaluate what they consider journalism. It is one of the oldest and most widespread sources of sensationalist garbage in print; take into account that they are owned by News Corporation, who also own Fox. They survive as an editorial because they do not subscribe to any traditional journalistic beliefs, their lack of a guiding political ideology, and their willingness to do anything to survive as a newspaper.
In short, they, like most other entertainment companies, tune their material as their target demographic changes, and that demographic just happens to love to hear about violence. That is a phenomenon I have never been able to fully understand.
Click to expand...

But is it that the newspapers are giving people violence because that's what the people want or is it that the newspapers bombard the people with a world view that then becomes the readers reality?
 
I think that with unexpected things like this it takes a while for people to clue into what's actually happening, and it's not that they don't want to help the guy it's that they have to adjust to that sort of situation and bring themselves out of their own little worlds.

Maybe a soldier or a cop or a firefighter or someone who is used to dealing with emergencies would have been more on guard and more likely to act, because they've developed that instinct and they're confident with being able to handle themselves in those kinds of situations. The photographers instinct was to take a picture, and everyone else's instinct was probably something more like 'someone else will handle it'. It doesn't mean that they're evil or brainwashed or heartless... it just means that that's where their minds were because that is how they have been socialized.

I don't think they should have put it on the front page though-- that's offensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top