Final Exam Extra Credit

I accidentally posted this on my Journalism blog instead of Photojournalism.  Oops.

Apologies.  I totally used all these questions and this situation to rant.

1).  The man, Ki Suk, had been pushed onto the tracks by a panhandler who was harassing people after trying to calm him down.  The photographer says he'd tried to help, but when he realized he couldn't, he started taking picture with his flash in hopes of warning the operator about the person in their path.

2).  To warn the operator about Ki Suk with his flash.

3).  No.  NO, he shouldn't have taken the photo.  He should have kept trying to help, even if he'd thought it was hopeless.  If the operator of the subway hadn't already seen the person, he wasn't going to anytime soon--people (such as tourist) probably take pictures of the incoming subway with their flash on all the time.

4).  I don't think he did the best he could in this situation.  Ki Suk was about to die, and the photographer got out his camera to take pictures with the illogical excuse that the operator would stop the train because he used his flash as a warning.

5).  I strongly disagree with the decision to use this photo as the cover of the New York Post.  This man, Ki Suk, is famous now--not because he tried to help the people being harassed by a panhandler, but because a picture was taken of him right before his death.  He's now famous for being hit by a subway train.  The cruelty of putting him on the cover of the New York Post is...unexplainable.

6).  Stopping bad things from happening should be more important to a photojournalist than capturing pictures of bad things happening.  This death might have been avoided if he'd just kept trying, instead of trying to take a picture of the event.  Photos and stories of terrible things wouldn't have to be famous and making people nationwide sick to their stomachs if they'd never happened in the first place.

7).  If something isn't going to end in death, a photojournalist probably shouldn't involve him or herself in the photos they're taking (such as, if they were taking photos of a presidential debate, or a person being interviewed for a news story).  If something completely serious (such as this) is happening, they shouldn't be taking photos in the first place; they should be helping.  I'm not saying they should have a reckless Harry Potter personality, throwing themselves into danger to help people--but they should try.

8).  There are circumstances in which a photojournalist should probably try to avoid influencing events as they happen (such as, again, a presidential debate), or something that involves an environment that they could somehow ruin with either their cameras or their bodies.  Something like this, though, isn't normal.  It's special circumstances, like when your orchestra director says you can't miss more than two rehearsals unless you're lying sick in a hospital bed or got lost somewhere over the rainbow.  With this, and anything like it, I find it almost disrespectful to the subjects of the photo if the photojournalist is taking pictures instead of helping.  Imagine how terrified Ki Suk must have been when the photojournalist gave up helping him--seriously???

9).  How does “taking pictures” tell a conductor to stop a train? Huh? Is this photographer guy a moron? Throw down your camera and run to help the guy. If you fail, at least you tried. Taking pictures isn’t trying. What conductor would think, “Oh, look, someone’s taking pictures…maybe I should stop the train.”

I completely agree with this (this was the point I made earlier).  I can't make myself believe anything the photographer is saying about helping with the flash, and if he meant it...I seriously question the intelligence of today's society.