Okay, so, first off, I found out at the doctor's yesterday that I had lost a few pounds, so I celebrated by eating a bunch of cookies. Hey, it made perfect sense to ME. And this, my friends, is why I'm not a brain surgeon.
Now. There was an article in my local paper today (Yes. I still read the print edition of the paper. I subscribe, even. They deliver it to my home. I AM OLD. IT IS OFFICIAL.) about the outcry over the NYC photog who snapped a pic of a man about to get run over by a subway train. There is, of course, also outcry over the fact that the N.Y. Post PUBLISHED the photo. And then, my local paper, for good measure, published the photo to accompany the article.
Now. Given the amount of media I peruse, I was going to see that picture at some point. It was inevitable. But maybe it shouldn't be.
Maybe I'm just a delicate flower, but maaaaan, I don't need to see shit like that. True confession: I was once at a local swamp and came upon a giant snake eating a giant bullhead. IT WAS AWESOME. And I had my camera. But I didn't take a picture. I couldn't. It would have been ... disrespecting the bullhead, somehow.
So yeah, maybe I'm just insane. But I don't think it's necessary to widely publish photos of people (or fish, for that matter) who are about to die. Did it happen? Yes. Do we have to SEE it? I would contend not.
Then again, I can see bringing up the whole Holocaust argument. Then again, there are people who STILL deny the Holocaust occurred, photos notwithstanding.
Should such pics be available for viewing? Maybe. Should they be available for viewing on the front page of a newspaper, where we are exposed to them whether or not we want to be? Maybe not. Maybe there are some things we don't need to see.
And maybe it needs to be taken in context. "Pics or it didn't happen" may be applicable and even valuable in some cases, but in this case? In the case of one man about to lose his life to a subway train? What is served by publishing that? Besides selling more papers, that is.
I don't know. I feel like I'm all over the place with this. What do you guys think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Nah, in this case, I think it's a good thing. Some asshole is running through the subway pushing people onto the tracks, and everyone was too shocked to pull the man back up onto the platform. The photographer was too far away to help. A bit of horror at seeing this moment in the papers means that next time, people will know what is happening and run to help. People are basically good, but shock freezes them, knowledge mobilizes them. I'm not a fan of death porn, but journalistic reporting of horrifying events has its purpose.
The photographer said he took the photo hoping that the flash would alert the driver of the train. Ok, fine.
But then he sold the photo.
Not fine.
I'm less upset about the effect on folks like you or me - I'd worry more about the effect of that photo on the man's family. Nobody should have to deal with that added trauma.
Holly, I am forced to disagree with you. Bill Nye collapsed on stage during a talk at USC in November of last year. Not one person in the audience rushed to his aid or called 911. Instead, they sat there and posted his collapse to Facebook and Twitter. He regained consciousness on his own.
Most people just don't want to get involved. Everyone leaves it to someone else. It's called the bystander effect. Google "Kitty Genovese".
In the subway, I suspect that people saw the train coming, it was TOO close, and they were afraid that if they tried to help, the guy could pull them down onto the tracks with him, or they'd get pulled in when the train hit him.
(Cat people would know what to do to avoid that. You whip your jacket off and throw him the sleeve to pull him up - just like you rescue a cat has fallen into the toilet. That way you help without being grabbed in a death grip.)
Okay, still processing here - a few more ruminations - Thanks for your input, guys - let's keep talking -
1. My willingness to save someone's life has a direct correlation with how likely I am to survive the attempt. Not pretty, but there it is. If the dude had been pushed onto the tracks with no train coming, would I have tried to help him? Absolutely. I THINK so, anyway. I'd probably try to round up some other bystanders to form a human chain, to reduce the odds of getting pulled onto the tracks myself. Of course, I SAY that, but who knows? Maybe I'd be one of the useless people who just stands there and watches. And in the case of this situation, with the train RIGHT THERE? Honestly? I'd walk away as quick as I could, so I wouldn't have to witness what was about to happen.
2. The thing about the flash alerting the train driver? HAHAHAHAHA oh PLEEEEEEASE.
3. The idea of the Post using this as a teachable moment? Nope. They did it to sell papers. No other reason. I'd like to see what their sales figures were for that day as compared to usual sales.
4. ~~Silk, yeah, Kitty Genovese. See also: Any episode of "What Would You Do?" on ABC.
5. Pulling a cat out of a toilet? Never had to do that one. They come out all on their own, at rocket speed, as soon as they hit the water. :)
Studies have shown that the larger the number of people present, the less likely any of them will act. (There's an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect which is informative, but not well-written. Sometimes you have to read a sentence three times to figure out what it's saying.)
On a group, people take their cues from others, and tend to think that there's someone else there more qualified to act. Responsibility is diffused.
[IN a group, not ON a group. Sheesh.]
I don't blame him for selling the photo. Man's gotta eat, and he is paid to take pictures of newsworthy events. He's not the one who decided to publish it. Editors get paid to make those decisions and they are the ones who risk offending people for the sake of selling a newspaper.
Would it be different if the photographer were a freelance writer who witnessed it and wrote a detailed account that was published in the newspaper? Photos are more striking, but the content would be the same.
I once read a story about a man who was trapped in his car as it burned after an accident. There were people standing all around who wanted to help but couldn't because of the flames. They just had to stand there and watch him burn alive until help came (too late). There were no photos, but I still remember that story 10 years later, and it made me the way I feel now about this story.
*made me feel the way I do now.
They stood there and watched? Like he was a Yule Log or something? Oh nononononono
I'm beginning to realize that if I'm ever in need of a daring rescue, I'm basically screwed.
Post a Comment