1. The man on the tracks was pushed there after trying to calm an abusive panhandler. Instead of helping the man, a photographer started taking pictures, hoping the camera's flash would be enough to warn the train to stop.
2. The photographer said he took the photo because he thought the camera's flash would be enough to stop the train.
3. I don't think the photographer should've taken the photo because he had the chance to save a life, but he just decided to document the death instead.
4. I don't think the photographer did all he could to help. Instead of pulling out his camera, he could've tried to pull him out of the tracks. From what I read, it doesn't sound like he event attempted to help the man.
5. I don't think I agree with the publishing of the picture on the New York Post because it was a really gruesome scene that really shouldn't have happened. It was wrong to make it so public so everyone could see the tragedy.
6. To a journalist, capturing life as it happens is more important because that's their job. They get paid to take startling pictures that provoke people's minds and get them interested. The photographer saw an opportunity to take a horrifying, interesting picture, so he took it.
7. I don't think it's ethically acceptable for a photographer to get involved with a situation because it could bring up a lot of questions and they could possibly miss an opportunity to get the shot they'd been waiting for.
8. Yes, photographers should avoid influencing events because they don't want to get too attached to a moment that is hard for them. The photographer must have had a hard time witnessing that man's death, so he should distance himself from it as much as possible.
9. Based on other photojournalists' work a sad, gruesome picture could win the photographer many awards, but they may get lots of bad comments from people outside of the photojournalism world.
No comments:
Post a Comment