Subway photo
December 5th, 2012 | Uncategorized |On Tuesday, the New York Post ran a front page photo of a man about to die as a subway train approached a station where the man had been pushed into the path of the train. The ethical questions that have arisen over the conduct of the photographer, R. Umar Abbasi, (and the conduct of the New York Post in printing the photo) have caused a storm within and without the journalism world. The NPPA Ethics Committee has attempted to bring some perspective to the discussion. The discussion collected here is from emails by John Long, Ethics Chair NPPA, Steve Raymer, Peter Southwick, Committee members, and NPPA President Sean Elliot.
New York Subway Photo
By John Long
First, I cannot look into the heart of another man and judge him. If the photographer thought in the panic of the moment that flashing his strobe would alert the train driver, so be it. I do not know how far he was from the victim or how fast the train was going or if he could have pulled the man up or any details about the event. I cannot and will not pass judgment on another man’s motives.
That being said, was anyone there who could have pulled the victim up? The photographer is getting all the attention because he put himself into the story by making photographs and thereby calling attention to his presence at the scene.
I have very strong opinions on putting the camera down and helping but there are many well-meaning photojournalists who totally disagree with me. Some say the photographer has no right to participate in the story he or she is covering, that the photographer must remain objective, merely observe and not become a participant.
I do not believe it is possible to be totally objective. Your very presence at the scene changes the event you are covering to some degree.
For 25 years I have said the same thing: It is a matter of values.
Principles emanate from your values and this is the principle that works for me: “If you have placed yourself in a position where you can help, I feel you are morally obligated to help.” I am a human being first and a photojournalist second. In my world-view, my family comes first, my church second and my photojournalism third. I have to sleep at night.
I look back at the photographs that have had some repercussions over the years. Nick Ut’s photo of the Vietnam girl running naked after being napalmed and the photo by Kevin Carter of the child in Somalia being stalked by a vulture. In the first case, Nick made the photo and then took the child to the hospital. In the second, Kevin walked away and shortly after receiving his Pulitzer Prize, committed suicide.
The question for all photographers is this: what is the value of human life? What is my role, here and now, in this time and in this place? What are my priorities? Is the greatest good served by making the photo or by helping the victim? I know what I believe, but every photojournalist must look into his or her own soul and decide.
Secondly, should the newspaper have run the photo? Another principle I espouse is this: if the public needs this information in order to make informed choices for society, then we must run the photo. This is why we ran the Black Hawk Down photo. This is why we ran the photos of bodies floating in the streets after Katrina; this is why we ran the photo of Ambassador Stevens a few weeks ago from the attack in Libya. Does this subway photo serve anything more than prurient interests? Personally I do not see any social value but every newspaper has to find its proper voice with its readers and the Post has traditionally had a higher tolerance on taste issues than most papers. It is not my choice for a front page but The Post does sell a very large number of copies every day.
Bottom line: I hope I am never faced with this kind of choice but I also hope if I am, I put the camera down and try to do something for the person involved. It is the human thing to do and in the end, your human values in turn give value to your photojournalism.
By Steve Raymer:
Our professional and personal values are often in conflict, which is why training in ethical decision-making and a commitment in news rooms to ethical decision-making, including discussions, is critical.
Please take a look at the new gallup poll of December 2012 that asked our fellow Americans about the honesty, ethical behavior, and integrity of various professions and see where journalists stand:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx
Only 24 percent of the public sees us as ethical, sandwiching journalists between bankers and business people. Not exactly the company we want to keep, I should think.
Hence the additional evidence, if we needed more, that the reading and viewing public views what we do with great suspicion. And when you see the front page of today’s New York Post the public has every right to hold this view.
The research from the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, housed at The Columbia University School of Journalism, suggests that while “there isn’t a large amount of research on how traumatic images affect news consumers in particular…mental health experts who specialize in trauma know that news reports about a traumatic event can have an impact on the psychological life of an individual not only immediately after the event but for years down the road.”
Publishing that tasteless and inflammatory image on the front page of The New York Post carries the power to caused additional pain and trauma, including aggravating symptoms of post traumatic stress syndrome in individuals who have experienced trauma in the past. Moreover, research shows that the more we show cities as crime prone — 11 p.m. TV newscasts have been especially well studied — the more audiences see the community as prone to criminality and the more fearful TV viewers can become. I see this image as one of those cases. Imagine tens of thousands of New Yorkers going to work tomorrow and the tension on the subway platform.
My bottom-line : Put down the damned camera and do what we would elect of another human being, that is to render aid, however feeble and imperfect! As I tell students, inn the end, doing ethics is about being able to look at yourself in the morning when you are shaving or putting on your makeup. Something tells me this photographer will have a very hard time passing that test tomorrow, next week, next year, and maybe forever.
By Sean Elliot:
I could see condemning the publication, except what is the standard? Is this once again dead in the U.S. are too sensitive a topic while dead in Syria or wherever overseas are not?
papers run photos of people about to die in car wrecks, and fires … as John said, this is the NY Post, this is what they do … whether it’s titillating or horrifying … it’s what their readers expect. As long as those 500,000+ continue to buy the paper they’ll continue to publish along those lines.
I think the Post editors took their traditions too far, for sure. They jumped on a chance to run a sensational image because it was … sensational. And it has been. The Post could not buy the kind of PR they’re getting. And no matter how much we elitist snobs in the media elite complain, they’re not going to change. It’s a black-eye to all of use who work places and have standards that would never use that image. It’s not a public service, it’s not raising a greater awareness, it’s not elevating the discussion … it’s horrifying the audience that wants, because they are so over-stimulated by the entire media culture, to be horrified so as to feel something.
My gut reaction was to say why does this deserve to be published … but it calls to question practically every image that wins in the spot news category of any contest … look at the spot news winners in BOP, POY, World Press, the monthly clips especially …
if it bleeds it leads? Maybe it’s time for wider soul-searching well beyond the New York Post?
By Peter Southwick:
Here’s my own take.
I would also be hesitant to pass judgment on the photographer’s actions, having not been there myself. If his story is to be believed, then in my opinion he acted appropriately in attempting to alert the train’s driver. It’s quite likely it was already too late given the proximity of the train, but that’s not something that can be judged in a split second. The photographer’s actions following the incident could cause some skepticism: selling the photo to the Post, and refusing to talk to anyone in the media without being paid. But again, his motives after the incident are not what has been called into question.
I always go back to my three levels of decision-making when considering an incident like this one. First, the legal. Did the photographer break any laws? Clearly not. Second, ethical. Did he violate the standards of the profession? If we take his story at face value, the answer again is no. And third, what I call the moral. This is the “can he look at himself in the mirror” question. Only he can answer that one, and he is not talking about it. I have always agreed with John Long’s statement that if we have put ourselves in a position to help, we are obligated to help.
To comment on the actions of the New York Post seems like a fool’s errand. Never known for their high standards of journalistic integrity, perhaps this represents another low. Steve is right that publishing this kind of photo in a such a sensational way continues to undercut our standing in the eyes of the public, but this has never been the concern of publications like the Post. Page One of their paper was on the front of every web site in the country today, with commentary flooding in from all over. An unqualified success, I am sure, in the eyes of the Post. As John Long always says, we have to consider the context.
So this was a tragic incident to be sure, and it is important for us to discuss these kinds of events to see if there are broader lessons to be learned. In my opinion, it’s up to each of us to ask what we would have done in similar circumstances and to make sure we can live with our answer.
I posted the following on facebook: Some other disturbing facts. The victim was on the tracks between 60 and 90 seconds before the train came into the station. The photographer was not the only person there. Many others did nothing during that minute and a half to attempt to get him off the track. This isn’t an ethics in photojournalism discussion, this is an ethics in humanity discussion. For me, it’s a no brainer….You always help another human being in need….IF it is within your capacity to do so without placing yourself in grave danger. Many people are vilifying the photographer. My anger is directed more at all the other people on the platform who stood by and did nothing…and of course, the New York Post, who to me, has reached an all time low by publishing the image and the outrageous headline and subhead “This man is about to die,” on their cover.
[...] Link: Ethics Matters » Subway photo First, I cannot look into the heart of another man and judge him. If the photographer thought in the panic of the moment that flashing his strobe would alert the train driver, so be it. I do not know how far he was from the victim or how fast the train was going or if he could have pulled the man up or any details about the event. I cannot and will not pass judgment on another man’s motives. [...]
What amazes me is the fact that this photographer is getting more attention it seems than the person who allegedly shoved the doomed man onto the subway tracks.
I believe most “sensational” photos should be shot and published.
In this case it may shed more light on a problem that has occurred a few times in the past, people getting pushed onto subway tracks. This photo really makes the point. Without the photo, the public might give the story 30 seconds of their time after reading.
People will remember this image.
Maybe people will think about how close they are to the tracks, how to avoid getting crushed…
I myself while driving to an assignment came upon an incident where something was laying in an intersection. It was white and looked like a clothed mannequin. Many cars went around it. I pulled over to get a closer look and it was a man who had been run over and was laying in the street for who knows how long. He had bloody liquids coming out of his mouth. I could have shot something, but decided to hold the mans hand while I called 911.
I can live with what I did and I doubt my old paper would have run the image anyway.
I refuse to believe this photographer could have helped, but didn’t. That would mean he was close enough to help, but backed up to get a better composition. I refuse to believe that about him and I thank him and the Post for shedding light on a recurring tragedy.
It’s not as sensational a photo as two Pulitzers I can recall, the burning Vietnamese monk, and Greg Marinovich’s burning man in South Africa.
[...] even for photojournalists, the choice is not always obvious. In a lengthy blog post on The National Press Photographers Association, John Long, Ethics Chair for the NPPA, [...]
First, all those in the media criticizing the morals and ethics of the photographer and the New York Post for running the photo, published the photo, including this blog. If publishing the photo was so ethically wrong why are the critics doing it?
Secondly, read the original story. The offender was harassing people waiting for the train. He pushed the victim off the platform. That means others, maybe several others since it was the Times Square station, were present and close to the scene. Look at the photo- not one other person or even an out stretched arm could be seen.
Read the story about the criticism. The photographer said he was twenty feet away and moving. He is past middle age and does not like the super hero type. He also states several people right at the scene were photographing and taking video of the action with their phones. What about their morals? They were shooting instead of helping. Those so-called good citizens are not being blistered for doing nothing. How many of them tried to sell their images or put them on YouTube or their own social media site?
The picture itself is one thing. But it appears no one actually read the two stories carefully. They document what happened.
Last, if the photographer was in a position to help and was what good would that have done except to salve consciences. The same picture would have run on the front pages of all newspapers, the photographer would have been made a hero, and post-humous prizes would have flowed like water.
This is just whining from jealous competitors because they did not get the picture first. Let’s be honest, admit it, and move on.
[...] even for photojournalists, the choice is not always obvious. In a lengthy blog post on The National Press Photographers Association, John Long, Ethics Chair for the NPPA, writes: [...]
WNYC Brian Leher show had photog on
He was Too far away to help
Others were closer did nothing
He did his job by documenting
The scene
Remember the Vietnam Nam
War photo showing the moment
Of execution by Police Chief
Photojournalists are here to document
I don’t know any who wouldn’t
Help if they could
[...] even for photojournalists, the choice is not always obvious. In a lengthy blog post on The National Press Photographers Association, John Long, Ethics Chair for the NPPA, [...]
[...] even for photojournalists, the choice is not always obvious. In a lengthy blog post on The National Press Photographers Association, John Long, Ethics Chair for the NPPA, [...]
[...] even for photojournalists, the choice is not always obvious. In a lengthy blog post on The National Press Photographers Association, John Long, Ethics Chair for the NPPA, [...]
[...] even for photojournalists, the choice is not always obvious. In a lengthy blog post on The National Press Photographers Association, John Long, Ethics Chair for the NPPA, writes: [...]
[...] even for photojournalists, the choice is not always obvious. In a lengthy blog post on The National Press Photographers Association, John Long, Ethics Chair for the NPPA, writes: [...]
[...] even for photojournalists, the choice is not always obvious. In a lengthy blog post on The National Press Photographers Association, John Long, Ethics Chair for the NPPA, writes: [...]
[...] Long, NPPA (Asociación Nacional de Fotógrafos de prensa): “Tu trabajo como ser humano, por decirlo de [...]
I can’t pass judgment on this photographer. Yes, the situation is horrifically tragic but I wasn’t there. You can talk all you want to the big head, high profile editors and photographers you want but the story is the same. What would you do? As you know the NPPA has an Award called the Humanitarian Award. Why aren’t you talking to past recipients on what they did and why. At least those are real situations and isn’t conjecture by those who have never been in a life saving situation. The journalistic ethical decree that some feel strongly about of not interceding in my mind doesn’t hold up in many situations. I can understand it where your own life might be in danger or in war and other cases of atrocities where an image can help change public opinion or policy. This case is a senseless death enacted by a deranged man. His preventable death will change nothing other then sell papers and generate conversations like this. It’s my opinion if there is no one around and you are the only one who can help then help God sakes. This is a sad case that perfectly reflects the poor moral fiber of our society. If it’s not me then who gives a shit. What if this was you…
[...] even for photojournalists, the choice is not always obvious. In a lengthy blog post on The National Press Photographers Association, John Long, Ethics Chair for the NPPA, writes: [...]
Would we feel differently if it were not the NY Post?
I wish there had been context, not ‘Doomed’, to frame the photo (like, could anyone have helped him). The photo should not have been Page One two days running. I would like to see the entire take. It is quite well framed for something the photographer says he was not trying to shoot. Lucky frame? Crop of a bad frame? Is the whole take framed that way?
Mark Hertzberg
I have noticed that in unwanted cameras, special devices help to maintain focus automatically. The particular sensors with some digital cameras change in in the area of contrast, while others make use of a beam of infra-red (IR) light, especially in low lumination. Higher spec cameras occasionally use a mixture of both programs and could have Face Priority AF where the video camera can ‘See’ your face as you concentrate only upon that. Many thanks for sharing your ideas on this website.
[...] Long, NPPA (Asociación Nacional de Fotógrafos de prensa): “Tu trabajo como ser humano, por decirlo de [...]
Thank you, I’ve just been looking for information approximately this subject for ages and yours is the best I’ve came upon so far. However, what concerning the bottom line? Are you certain in regards to the source?|What i do not realize is if truth be told how you’re no longer really a lot more well-appreciated than you might be now. You’re very intelligent.
I’d need to check with you here. Which just isn’t something I often do! I delight in reading a post that will make consumers think. Also, thanks for permitting me to comment!
billig Nike Free 7.0
I do not even know the way I finished up right here, however I believed this post used to be good. I do not recognise who you’re however definitely you are going to a famous blogger in the event you aren’t already. Cheers!
Woah this web site is definitely wonderful everyone loves understanding the articles you write. Sustain the truly amazing operate! You are aware of, many people will be shopping around just for this info, you could assist these individuals significantly.
I enjoyed visiting you have some very intersting information. Keep posting these great articles, I will be back to see your progress. Later!
I delight in, cause I found exactly what I used to be looking for. You’ve ended my four day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye