1. The man was pushed into the tracks by another person, and the photographer was supposedly able to shoot a picture by using the flash of his camera to alert the driver of the subway.
2. The photographer said he took the photo to warn the subway driver with his flash to stop the train.
3. I don't think that the photographer should have taken the photo, and that he should of helped the man before doing anything else.
4. I do not think that the photographer did the best thing, he should have helped the man. The article says that the man was not strong enough to pull himself above the tracks, but with help he should have been able to get back on the walkway again.
5. I think that even though the photo tells an interesting story, it should not have been run on the front page of the New York Post. As one commenter of the article said, the morbid photo would have been available for the man's whole family to see, which could not have been fun for them.
6. In my opinion it depends on the situation. In situations such as this, when there is no one else available to help, the photojournalist needs to help a person rather than help his career. However, if there is other people available to help, then the photographer is okay to shoot rather than help. In some situations, the photographer could do both. For example, in Kevin Carter's picture of a starving child, it would have been fine to take a picture, and then help the child, however he did neither.
7. I think it is ethically acceptable for a photographer to involve themselves as long as the photographer doesn't change anything about the situation.
8. I think that photographers should influence situations such as these when someone's life is being threatened, because in the end, a human life is always more important than a picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment