The Lowest Common Snap Photographer

Please excuse the non-movie-related posts lately, but I've entered a stream-of-consciousness mode, so please humor me.  As many you have heard, a freelance photographer took a picture of a man just before he was killed by an oncoming subway in New York City earlier this week.  Most persons, including myself, have an opinion on the matter, though it's difficult to have an informed specific stance, as all the details are not known.  What we do know is that one man pushed another man (who may have been inebriated and aggressive, which I'm unsure as to how it affected the outcome) into the pathway of the train during an altercation, which resulted in his death.  A photographer captured the moment before the subway ran him over and then sold the photo to New York Post, a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch and known for its tabloid leanings.  I've read arguments in lukewarm support of the photographer, as he is trained to instinctually capture moments as they are happening.  He's reported to have said he used the flash on his camera to alert the train of the helpless man's predicament   He would have been better off saying nothing.  For one, a flash was not used in every instance he took a picture (which may be explained away), but one only needs to look at the photo in question to notice how perfectly framed this "money" shot was.  To his defense, we have no idea at what point he entered the situation.  While my desire is to judge the guy for not dropping his camera and reaching out for the guy, I have to assume he wasn't in a position to be of any reasonable assistance.  While I'm playing armchair quarterback, I hope that if had I been there, and there was an opportunity, I would have reacted differently.  But, again, we don't know what transpired and how quickly.  It could have just as easily been the perfect storm of tragedy.  Yet, not seeing one hand reach from out from anyone, however fruitless, really stings and implicates all of us, does it not?



Setting that event aside, a transaction did result which involved the photographer actively selling the photo to the Post.  The photographer was complicit in financially benefiting from another man's death--as it was happening.  In my line of work (to pay the bills), which also involves sales, I often find myself compromising the ideal standards.  As far as I know, however, there isn't any decision which I make that involves the life or death of another person.  And, I would hope, regardless of the money involved, I would have the constitution to consider just what I was giving up for my gains.  I would hope.  To remind people that we live in a sick world where this can happen is not something I would want on my conscience.   Or would I?

But, even if you assume there was nothing the photographer could have done to save the man's life AND that a man has got to eat and pay the bills, there's the element of the Post, who had plenty of time to consider their options.  They are known for engaging in sensationalist journalism to boost the bottom-line.  Are there still not standards?  Is the public or greater good served in any way by being informed of this horrific act(s)?  Aren't we all aware of how dangerous subways can be, especially when pushed onto the tracks?  Unfortunate events occur all the time and some photos can needfully focus attention on war-time atrocities that take place, but the publishing of this photo strikes me as more insidious than informative.  Is one's impending death not private and sacred?  There's an inherent "entertainment value" in its existence that outweighs any social narrative at play, other than we need to take our own pulse and make sure there's still a heartbeat.  And, is there an argument out there that it was necessary for the photo to be displayed front and center?  I try to put myself in the shoes of those who know and/or loved him, and how they must feel seeing that photo.

YET, even if you excuse every aforementioned aspect of how this was handled (the photo being taken, sold, and printed on the front page), the final straw is really the headline, which includes, "This man is about to die," followed by "Doomed" in big block letters.  This is suggestive of a detachment void of any empathy; a calculated decision based on monetary motivation.  Money was to be made.  It's difficult to be viewed any other way.  Capitalism can be cold, but must it be this callous?

This photo splashed so visibly in the public sphere did nothing, but spark a conversation about we're willing to tolerate.  Frankly, I believe there is too much we allow.  Generally speaking, some say very little is sacred these days, the genie has left the bottle, and there is no going back.  I'm not sure if I agree.  But, this is a new low, and is reflective of what we as a society are willing to put up with.  I didn't write this post to make myself feel superior.  I wrote this post, because I didn't need to see this.  And, neither did those close to him.  The overall situation is just a tragedy squared.

You can contact the Post here to express your opinion on the matter.