Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
December 6, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 174

Subway Death Causes Controversy

:iconcreativity-squared:
Creativity-Squared Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012  Student General Artist
[link] [link] [link]

A couple of days ago, a man was hit and killed by a subway train in New York City after a man pushed him onto the tracks. A freelance photographer on the scene at the time decided to take photographs of this instead of making an attempt to help the man. He sold the photos to the New York Post, and they ran one of the photos with the caption: "Pushed on the subway track, this man is about to die: DOOMED."

Do you think the photographer, and the New York Post, reacted to this situation in a moral way? What should be done?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
the photographer acted in the way that would make him the most money
Reply
:iconalevan:
Alevan Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
This was a tough one.

At one hand, a part of me was screaming, "WHY ARE YOU STANDING THERE!? HELP HIM UP! HIS HAND IS RIGHT THERE!" I was disgusted and outraged not a single person, the photographer or anyone there was helping him back on the tracks. The whole thing could have been prevented had people been good Samaritans and helped him right back on the platform.

... on the OTHER hand, I was never put in a situation where someone was pushed onto a train with a train coming on the tracks. It is something you don't see every day. You go into a sense of shock and not believing what your seeing. These things happen.

But... the one taking the photograph and then had it on the doom picture? That isn't a man in shock and he could have put the camera down and helped. Pictures like that with such a caption is the kind you see on 4chan or other dark humor websites. The New York Post? Not exactly where I'd see it.

Shame on you, is what I say to them.
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
One does wonder about the absences of fences or walls or anything to keep people from falling in. I know they've got them in Beijing, but I suppose it's possible there are other problems associated with stationary doors.

Mysterious.
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Fun fact: I accidentally lit myself on fire in 2006, and my first thought was "I should take a picture of this, it would be hilarious." As my sleeve was on fire.

My point is, not everyone handles surprises well and their instincts in an emergency are not always ideal.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012
Oh wow. This thread reminds me of why having hope in humanity is stupid.
Reply
:iconendeavor-to-freefall:
Legality and morality are two different things, he's not obligated to do anything. It may well be immoral to not try and save the guy but sometimes morality is stupid.
Reply
:iconmeanus:
meanus Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012
why hasnt' the asshole who did the pushing been charged with a hate crime?
Reply
:icondefense2:
defense2 Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012
You have a train some 50-30 feet away... Can you reasonably reach down three feet, pull a hundred and sixty pound man who is panicked up from that?

You have seconds to act.

Answer is most of us do not have the cartoon character strength to reach down and lift that kind of panicked weight.

Instead both you and the trapped man will die.

So the photographer tried in vain to warn the train operator with the flash on the camera. It is very likely the operator never saw the flash as it wouldn't overpower the stations lights to begin with.
Reply
:iconvisionoftheworld:
VISIONOFTHEWORLD Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012
BULLSHIT. The photographer was not warning anybody, he SOLD THE PICTURES he was taking. If he was warning the train he would have been yelling not taking pictures. And his pictures would not have turned out well enough to be published if he was warning the train with it.
A 160 pound man is nothing. Haven't you sstood in a subway tunnel? The train being that far away is plenty of time that I could pull a man up high enoughto get him out of harm. It would only take a second or two, it's not that hard. Pulling a person out of harms way should NEVER be explained to be too hard. You insult the hundreds of people who perform these acts in the face of great danger. To rescue a person we haven't met is one of the things that makes human. To stand and decide we don't have the time or strength is dispicable. And you just easily accepting that lame explanation as valid is even worse.
Reply
:iconstaple-salad:
staple-salad Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
A person panicking is very dangerous. If he were cooperative and sound, that would be one thing, but when someone's panicking it's more likely that a would be rescuer would have ended up on the train tracks with him rather than saving him. Especially since gravity would have been on his side.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Why wouldn't the photos turn out well? A camera using a flash can have a shutter speed of 1/200 and still have crisp images.
Reply
:icondefense2:
defense2 Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012
you know nothing about professional cameras do you? His camera is not the dinky little 400 USD camera that you buy in Walmart. It has the ability to take photos to catch things in motion.

This means while running/moving its photos are clear.

So he can get photos like this whole moving, the flash alerting the train operator before the sound of his voice, ect.

Oh and light travels further and faster than sound. So anyone of intelligence can tell you that using the flash would be a far superior means of alerting the operator.

Now selling the photos? That's his job. They were a by product of trying to alert the operator.

This is no different than a photo journalist watching genicide in a African nation and not picking up a gun to stop it.

I highly doubt that you can lift 160 pounds of panicked weight in the few moments that were left to anyone close enough to that man.

This isn't the movies, and any person who's job it is to endanger themselves to rescue others will till you that there are many more who are dead because they tried to save others.

You are simply being a radical.
Reply
:icontinoculars:
Tinoculars Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012  Professional Interface Designer
Obviously nothing has changed in our human nature since the times of the Colosseum slaughters or the public guillotine (spelling?) executions, seeing someone die still gives us a thrill. The more genuine, the better, and if we can argue that we were "200 feet away" or in front of a TV or computer and couldn't do anything about it, then that's good enough to take the blame off the fact that we actually got a boner seeing someone give their last breath.

Nothing beats someone's death in the level of thrill that it gives us, not drugs or sex or anything - we're all fans of horror films and don't think anything of it because it's all fake, but doesn't it make it so much better when they say it's "based on a true story"? When they make it as realistic as they can so you can just fantasize that you were actually there when it happened, watching those people die because that's the closest they can get to the real thing.

The people in the subway and the photographer weren't afraid of risking their own lives or thinking of showing everyone else how cruel the real world actually is, they just stood there watching because they wanted to see it happen, they wanted to see the train hit that poor soul and smash him to pieces because they may never get the opportunity to see this happen right in front of them again. And they don't have to feel guilty about it because each one of them can blame everyone else for not doing anything, the more people there are, the less responsibility each of them feel to take action, so they can all say what that photographer said - too far away, to weak to lift someone, too many bags to carry etc. - all excuses to mask what really stopped them which is just sadistic pleasure.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Nothing beats someone's death in the level of thrill that it gives us, not drugs or sex or anything - we're all fans of horror films and don't think anything of it because it's all fake, but doesn't it make it so much better when they say it's "based on a true story"? When they make it as realistic as they can so you can just fantasize that you were actually there when it happened, watching those people die because that's the closest they can get to the real thing.


Not always. A lot of people who are into horror movies are into being scared, not seeing people die.

Can horror have death, torture, etc in it? Yes.But a horror movie also has intrigue, suspense and a lot of psychological stuff going on.

If I just wanted to see torture and death I'd go see a gore film (also known as 'torture porn'). Sadly, gore films are also erroneously called horror. It's rather easy to make a distinction though.

Saw, Hostel etc = Gore.
Rosemary's baby, A haunting in connecticut, The ward etc = Horror

(SPOILERS)
Out of those three examples I listed in horror, one person dies in Rosemary's baby. Well,technically people die in The ward, but they aren't actually people, but personalities. (the girl has multiple personalities)

Basically:
Horror = good plots scary, may or not have death.
Gore = very simple plots, have lots of people torture and killed. not scary, just gross.



Reply
:icondefense2:
defense2 Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012
Why do we think ourselves so much better than we were 2000 years ago? I for one never thought this.

Then again I realize that we love war... So long as we aren't made to fight it. That is why we can be at war for 12 years and no one demand that it end now.
Reply
:iconghostinthepines:
GhostInThePines Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Let's see... fire the newspaper employee(s) who was/were directly responsible for buying the photos and approving/writing/running the story?... that sounds good.

And the photographer? How about slapping him with a charge of 'involuntary manslaughter due to neglegance' or whatever they charge someone with for failing to take action when someone is dying of alcohol poisoning, a drug overdose, or attempted suicide... I think that about covers it, yeah.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012
Why would you charge the photographer with manslaughter? That's beyond pathetic.
Now you're going to mandate that people unwillingly put themselves in danger even if they're not qualified to positively affect the situation. That's terrible.

The photographer was not closer to the man than other people were (allegedly).
Why is it the photographer needs to be superman?
Why is it the photographer, who is a photographer, gets treated like a rescue professional?
Why is it the man on the tracks didn't think to run to the other side where there was ample space for him to stand safely?
Why is it a deranged person was allowed to panhandle on the platform?
Why is a newspaper being blamed for showing the ugly truth to the world?
Reply
:iconghostinthepines:
GhostInThePines Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
The charge of manslaughter would not be issued against him because of his failure to help the man, but because he stood around taking pictures after witnessing a crime. Maybe it would have been better to put it along the lines of "aiding" rather than "involuntary" manslaughter... he should have been dialing 9-1-1 on his cell phone or trying to alert security, not snapping pictures of a guy about to die. Or how about photographing the guy who actually pushed the other onto the tracks? Give the police some additional angle on the criminal other than security cameras or whatever.

The point is, there are some things in this world that are not to be done. And photographing a person about to die a gruesome death is one of them!
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
"The charge of manslaughter would not be issued against him because of his failure to help the man, but because he stood around taking pictures after witnessing a crime. "

That is NOT manslaughter.
Reply
:iconghostinthepines:
GhostInThePines Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Well then whatever someone is charged with when they fail to act when someone is trying to commit suicide.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
There is no charge for photographing a person.
Reply
:iconghostinthepines:
GhostInThePines Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Try using that excuse in a court of law when you're charged with causing a death through failure to act. Half of the US's laywers would probably love to sue you for wrongful death!
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
The photographer did not cause anyone's death. Your entire case is invalid.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
People do odd things when shocked. I've seen someone through up their hands and go 'I can deal with this!' and walk out, when a room was on fire.

When my friend removed the tip of her finger,in woodwork, she rather serenely called out 'Sir' (that's what we referred our male teachers) 'When you have a spare minute, I think you should come over here.' I looked up, my mouth dropped open and called out and said that there has been an emergency.

Fuck, when a car slammed through my house, the only thing my mother wanted to do was to make a cup of tea. The firefighters had to tell her very firmly 'No, You can not make a cup of tea, your house might collapse.

Are you going to punish people for having deer-in-headlights reactions?
Reply
:iconghostinthepines:
GhostInThePines Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Deer-in-the-headlights reactions may explain taking the photos but definitely not selling them to the newspaper after. There are no legitimate excuses for what this photographer did.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
How is this any different to security footage that is on the news every night? or the photos of bodies under sheets in the newspaper every morning?

What about the photo of the girl in vietnam being burnt by napalm? Or the man in Vietnam being shot in the head?

Or, more recently, the Afghani girl covered in her parents blood, because American troops shot them for trying to get their sick son to hospital?

Or the photo the 'the most beautiful suicide' taken about 50 years ago, when a lady jumped off the empire state building?

Or the photo of the dying African child being circled by an vulture?

Why should we punish this photographer, when every other single time, photographers not only have been allowed to take these photos, but also have gotten awards for it?

What's the fucking difference?
Reply
:iconghostinthepines:
GhostInThePines Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
You know, I tried sleeping on this just to see if it would change my mind... it didn't. Your response still disturbs and disgusts me to no end.

First off, I don't know what newscasts are like in Australia, but in my little region of northeastern America, the only "violent" security camera footage shown on TV news comes with the request of our police forces when they need help with an investigation. Our local papers also never print photos of human bodies... bagged or not... from current (as in not yet historical) incidents or crimes. Property damage is one thing, but reporters never approve anything that may get higher than a PG rating in our papers and broadcasts.

As for the photojournalism examples you've given, I find it absolutely repulsive that you would accept any of those as "art". Taking advantage and/or exploiting the suffering of anyone, particularly children, just so a photographer can add a little cash to his bank account or put another award on his shelf is absolute evil at its worst! You might as well be defending pedophiles if you're going to exploit pain and suffering of people like that!

And just because other people have approved of such exploitation is no excuse for you or anyone else living today to do the same. If you want to award a photojournalist for bringing such pain and suffering to the attention of the world, then award the story, not the photography.

And if you can't tell the freakin' difference between right and wrong in this, then I hope if you ever find yourself in need of serious medical attention, some photographer comes over and starts snapping shots of you instead of helping!


... P.S.: The murderer from this subway death case was from my region. He grew up in the same county where I live! And yet none of our local news stations or papers showed the photographs that the photographer took of the crime. We at least have some decency, unlike NYC and apparently the rest of the world trying to defend this creep...
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Oh come fucking on. America televised a suicide live a few months ago. That shit would never fucking do that here.


Do you think that not photographing something is going to make it magically disappear? Do you think that if we do not photograph it, you'll be able to forget about the horrible things that happen in the world? Do you want to just live your little sheltered world, pretending everything is sunshine and roses?

The world sucks. Nothing is going to change that. We should not try to hide the bad in the world, like you seem to want to do. You know what photographs do? They educate. They help to show the plight of people. Why do you think people become war photographers? Because they like it? Because of the money?

Fuck no. They do it to show the world what war really is. To show the truth, instead of the filtered fucking crap the government 'allows' us to see.

Take, for example, the girl covered in her parents blood, after the American soldiers killed her parents for trying to get her sick brother to hospital.

Do you think the American government would let the world know how fucking immoral they are? Do you think that the American government would let the world know they murder fucking people who supported the Americans, for trying to save their son?

Fuck no.


Just because you don't like seeing it, doesn't mean we should fucking sweep it under the rug and try to forget about it :|

You know what would have happened, if that photographer had tried to help? Two dead people. Wow! you sure got me there! That situation would have been soooooooo much better, right??



Just because you want everything to be sunshine roses, just because you don't want to know that the world isn't a happy place, doesn't make people who face the reality of the world 'sick.'

If anything, it makes you sick. You're fucking delusional. I'd much rather to be educated, knowledgeable and upset than living in your little la-la land, pretending everything is fine.
Reply
:icondeathwing-nirvash:
DeathWing-Nirvash Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012
It's called having a fucking job.
Reply
:iconghostinthepines:
GhostInThePines Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Since when does having a job = no morals?
Reply
:iconlesser-pandas:
lesser-pandas Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012
I don't know if the guy should've been expected to help. I mean it'd be kind of dangerous to try to pull someone up off the tracks when a train's coming--what if you got pulled in too?

I think what's wrong is in the way people profited from and sensationalized it. I mean putting "this man is about to die--DOOMED" in a huge font over the photograph? They tried to make it sort of cool, scary, and exciting. And they didn't get the man or his family's consent to do so. If the family doesn't want such a photo to be published, there's really no excuse, in my opinion.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012
"And they didn't get the man or his family's consent to do so"

Consent is not needed. This wasn't a domestic event, it was a public event.
Reply
:iconlesser-pandas:
lesser-pandas Featured By Owner Dec 7, 2012
Well duh, this wouldn't have happened if consent was needed.

Try to remember the topic--we're talking about whether we think the response to this situation is ethical.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
There is nothing unethical about showcasing the sad truth of reality.
Reply
:iconlesser-pandas:
lesser-pandas Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
I don't understand what you're trying to do.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
The photographer did nothing wrong. He did his job and captured the brutal realities of life in action.
Reply
:iconlesser-pandas:
lesser-pandas Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2012
Thanks for your opinion, I guess.
Reply
:iconcouchycreature:
CouchyCreature Featured By Owner Dec 7, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
whats legal and whats ethical are different I think in this situation. Maybe consent was not needed, but some compassion and concern for the family of the man would be an appropriate response, rather than his and the newspaper's purely commercial, and some would say callous, approach to the images.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
I think the paper is in a sensationalist industry.

But showing reality without blinders on is also something we need more of in our sheltered PC world.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
You know what!? Starship Troopers is a very neglected sci-fi film that doesn't get the recognition it deserves. It gets an A in my book! WHY IS NOBODY OUTRAGED OVER THIS!??!


Same with Jacob's Ladder. That's a fuckin' horror movie. This Insidious shit they have out now can eat my left nut.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2012
Starship Troopers sucks.
I mean it's a good campy movie with decent special effects.
But overall it's a B movie based on a good story.

I prefer the Dark Horse Comics run on Starship Troopers to the movies.
Reply
:icontehbigd:
tehbigd Featured By Owner Dec 7, 2012
I think, in a lot of ways, Starship Troopers is brilliant. First off, tits. Let's get that out of the way, because, well, tits make any movie better. Apart from that, though, it set up a brilliant social satire that seems far too earnest to be truly mocking, while still relying on out-and-out propaganda to inform the viewer as to what is going on. But how can anyone trust propaganda? Imagine every propaganda segment in it were done by Fox news, and swap out Bugs for Terrorists. They're an untrustworthy narrator, which throws the entire thing into a brand new perspective...

Then you've got NPH's character on screen dismembering and torturing bugs for science, and when they get a thinking bug, probing it in what is, assuredly, a very uncomfortable way. How can you believe that these people, a stand-in for fascists, hold any respect for the rights of sentient beings?

What if they destroyed their own city to start a boondoggle of a war in order to prop up the fascist society they've got going? How easy is it to believe that the bugs are truly capable of sending an asteroid to destroy a major city? They have no naval capacity at all; besides having big guns on their shores. You never see them in space, they populate other planets by sending out spores. Can you trust the reasons for going into this war?
The more you cynically you watch this movie, the more rewarding it gets.

[link]
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Starship Troopers came out in 1997, so its mockery goes from social commentary to goddamn prophecy.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
There were not enough tits to make Trooper any better.

Denise Richards would have had to do the whole movie topless (and making out with women) to make the movie better.

Yes, I said it was a good campy movie, but it's still only a B movie.
Reply
:icontehbigd:
tehbigd Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012
I still think it's better than a B-movie. B-movies are completely without guile, subtext, and literary merit, like Plan 9 from Outer Space, or THEM, or any number of terrible movies. The mere act of trying, the effort to include an unreliable narrator, as well as the ironic fascist satire propel it from B-movie to not-quite-A-lister-but-not-a complete-failure. It's not the kind of movie to end up on MST3K, but it wasn't a success either.
Reply
:iconebolabearvomit:
EbolaBearVomit Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012
OMG! Plan 9 is awesome:rofl:
Reply
:icondefense2:
defense2 Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012
If they have no navy, how are they on multiple planets?
Reply
:icontehbigd:
tehbigd Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012
They reproduce via spores, or so the movie says. Note how you never see them actually in outer space. No spacecraft, no nothing, just plasma shitting beetles. How the heck could they have launched an asteroid?
Reply
:icondefense2:
defense2 Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012
ever play Starcraft?

You don't see the Zerg with technology, but they move planet to planet.

Unless we can talk with the writer of the book from beyond the grave, I guess we will never know for sure. It can be either way.
Reply
:icontehbigd:
tehbigd Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012
Err, the book was a lot different. In the book, the bugs were a hivemind, sure, but they used weapons. And, oh yes, it endorsed fascism wholeheartedly, instead of ironically.
Reply
Add a Comment: