Comments on: The deadliest image Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:54:39 +0000 hourly 1 By: MarkBee Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:50:39 +0000 May I suggest that what we’ve got in the journalist’s criticism – and in at least one comment here – is a desire to use the publication of the photo as a (fortunate) opportunity to take shots at the Post? And may I also suggest that such motivation is based on the political slant of the paper? When a monk burned himself to death in Viet Nam, the photo ran in mainstream newspapers across the world, and won a Pulitzer Prize(!) for the photographer. But that’s different, of course.

By: matthewslyman Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:13:46 +0000 @LizKarschner: “Why would someone even take a picture and not help the person up?”
— It’s not easy to lift a 70–80kg man vertically 1.5m, and it’s dangerous to try to do so while a train is approaching at speed, especially if you have to stand right on the edge of the platform and lean your head out a little to do so — the result could have been two dead people instead of one.

> “less-than-plausible excuses about how he hoped that his repeated camera flashes would alert the train operator to stop for a man on the tracks.”
— Indeed. If this “photographer” had any idea what they were doing, they would have realised that with their camera pointing in this direction, their flash would have been more likely to effectively BLIND the train-driver than to alert them.

From the article linked from the word “…excuse…”:
> “The victim was so far away from me, I was already too far away to reach him when I started running.
> “The train hit the man before I could get to him, and nobody closer tried to pull him out.”
— This is the most chilling part for me. There were people closer to the victim, who didn’t try to help rescue the man, although they had far more opportunity to do so than the photographer did. Making matters worse, as you can see in the photograph, none of them stood on the edge of the platform flailing their arms about to attract attention and show the driver there was something wrong. They’re nowhere to be seen! Why so?

One reason why this bothers me is because I’ve personally witnessed this kind of behaviour in crowds: a man is beaten up in the street, or a woman victimized by a threatening man, and dozens of people walk by, yet no-one sticks up for the victim or calls the police. Road traffic accidents where a cyclist gets bashed onto the ground head-first in the middle of a busy junction (with drivers looking on from all sides) and his bicycle smashed up by a careless car driver who has obviously broken the rules of the road, yet no-one stops to register as a witness, the driver denies responsibility and so gets away Scott free “your word against his”… Schools where some psycho boy throws a high kick at another boy’s head or a punch at another boy’s back, and everybody sees it except the victim, yet no-one warns the person who’s about to be kicked or identifies the perpetrator after the fact.
In other cases where morbid curiosity trumps compassion: a man collapsed in the city center, blacked out for several minutes, awakes surrounded by dozens of curious onlookers, none of them medically qualified or even trying to help (just bending over and peering at him), and the first question they ask him is:
“Are you OK?”
— I have seen all of these things, first-hand.

We must ask ourselves, how it is that either:
• 90% of the population are total nincompoops, cowards with no compassion or , or
• What it is about crowd psychology that makes otherwise normal people run around like headless chickens in a situation like this.

If 90% of the population weren’t the kind of idiots who keep shoving from the back of the football crowd in a situation like Hillsborough (Liverpool) — then it wouldn’t be possible for a tiny minority of incompetents in fancy police uniforms to cause such destruction as the Hillsborough Disaster. h_disaster

Back to this man, Ki-Suck Han. How is it that this man got shoved onto the track by a crowd (or, by an unknown murderer), yet there’s no sign of that crowd anywhere near him in the picture? If the shoving was by a heaving crowd (and if big crowds often gather at this station), then why doesn’t this station have safety barriers? There are many more questions to be answered about this.

By: EthicsIntl Fri, 07 Dec 2012 05:46:38 +0000 By the way, does everyone here consider the NY Post a newspaper ?
It has been more like a drama tabloid for a long time, in my opinion anyway.

By: EthicsIntl Fri, 07 Dec 2012 05:28:49 +0000 Irresponsible reporting by all.

This article does not even mention who or how the victim was ‘pushed’ on the subway tracks, which leaves open the possibility that he got there on his own will, for whatever reason. That would take away from the market ‘value’ of the photo.

From the photographers’s location by studying the photo, provided that it has not been modified in Photoshop, the distance between the train & the victim is too short for anyone to put their own life in danger to save a stranger.

Being an imaging specialist for more than 40 years & knowing the insides of the NY Post for more than 30 years, I’m 99% sure that this photo has been heavily manipulated in Photoshop.

By: Jameson4Lunch Thu, 06 Dec 2012 17:54:23 +0000 The man isn’t supposed to be a superhero, for sure, but my first thought about the photo was “That sure is good quality for a security cam” followed by “oh, some jack!@# thought taking a picture was the appropriate thing to do at the moment he saw another human was in danger.”

Not that I really expect much else from humanity.

By: vinylambo Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:45:37 +0000 This photo and the cameraman’s inaction describes in one picture the parasitic nature of journalism. How can you justify a man taking a picture(and profiting from said picture) when another man is about to die? Most photographers document death and destruction with the intention of raising awareness, or the acknowledgement that the subjects involved are far greater then themselves and therefore only discussable from a broader context. This is… what. A picture of a man about to die, a case study in the apathy of humanity? Or is it an exercise in ethics? To see how many of his peers it takes to justify something like this.

By: Gordon2352 Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:16:08 +0000 And your point is?

Human nature being what it is, what do you expect?

With 7 billion people on the planet, and issues far more pressing than the fate of one person, you are wasting our time by writing about this.

By: LizKarschner Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:05:34 +0000 Why would someone even take a picture and not help the person up? I just don’t understand how some people can be so out of tune with humanity to take a picture for their own ideas instead of lending a hand to a fellow person, especially in the case of a life or death situation. In this photo, the man may have lived, but have we really gotten to such a place that this is going to become common place?

By: Foxdrake_360 Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:35:12 +0000 of it. sorry it’s 4 am here.

By: Foxdrake_360 Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:34:43 +0000 Can’t argue with any on it.