1. The man was pushed onto the subway tracks in front of an oncoming train, and the photographer said he was using his flash to try and warn the conductor.
2. The photographer, Umar Abbasi, claimed he was using his camera flash to warn the conductor, but the photograph looks suspiciously well-taken, as if he stopped to take a picture of the soon-to-be dead man.
3. I think the photographer should have put down his camera and ran over to try and lift the man out from the tracks: somebody's life should always take priority over a photograph.
4. I don't think the photographer did a good job: he claims he couldn't help the man off the tracks but that just seems unreasonable. I think he saw an opportunity for a once-in-a-lifetime photograph and took it instead of attempting to help save somebody.
5. I don't think the photograph should have been publicized, as one of the commenters said: the man's family is forced to see that image of their loved father, moments away from death.
6. I think photojournalists value capturing the ugliness of life rather than trying to prevent it. Many of the most renowned photojournalists have photographed tragedies: wars, shootings, natural disasters, etc.
7. Yes, I think it's ethically acceptable if they have the opportunity to help somebody in need. They shouldn't care about moral value or their photograph.
8. I think, if it's safe for a photojournalist to take a photograph then they should: but afterwards, they should do whatever they can to help a situation, like any decent human being would.
9. The first response stands out the most in my eyes. He's right, the photographer should not have stopped to take a photograph instead of helping. He claims he did his best to help, but I think that's a lie so he won't get attacked by the public for his actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment