"Ghouls Took Photos Of Dying Suicide Girl"

[crawdiddy]

The writer is writing the story after the fact.
The people on the scene could have chosen to help (or at least respect the body even if the girl didn't respect it herself - i.e. suicide)

There's a clear difference between the two imho.

Dave

If the victim is dead, then the photographer is documenting the scene after the fact. How is this more disrespectful than writing a story about it, and publishing it in a paper for money?

 

[bob338]

So, you agree that if the girl is already pronounced dead, then there's no problem with photographing her?

i don't think there is a moral question of photographing the dead. i do think there is a major moral question in photographing the about-to-be dead.

bob

 

[bob338]

The simple act of shooting a scene wouldn't inherently cause (further) harm to the girl.

but the simple act of choosing to take a picture instead of helping her most certainly would further harm her.


bob

 

[MartinP]

If the victim is dead, then the photographer is documenting the scene after the fact.

I disagree. That is the task of the police photographer and the processes that go along with the inquest. The people taking cameraphone snaps were probably (just a guess, but...) going to show them to their mates in the bar later. By that point the person was apparently beyond help, though it is likely none of those making photographs was medically qualified to make an examination to determine that fact, so a reasonable person might consider the effect on the family and friends of having their daughters corpse used for a laugh in a bar.

 

[back alley]

would it be ok/better if it weren't a camera phone?

 

[nikon_sam]

Several years ago, while cycling, I came across the scene of a head-on crash...moments before I had been passed by one of the cars, a 1959 Austin-Healy...
When I arrived at the intersection I could not believe what was before me...the driver of the Austin-Healy had been ejected from the car (no seat belts and top down) as he lay on the street he was indeed dying due to massive internal and head injuries...I was kneeling next to him when I believe he passed...
Several minutes later the Medics arrived and within 5-10 minutes stopped working on him...
During this time I was directing traffic...this guy in a van drives by with his cell phone camera pointing out the window shooting the scene...well needless to say I was pissed...I was tempted to hit the side of the van as he drove by...

This made me rethink the times I have pointed a camera out the window when passing a similar scene...
If I come across an accident these days and I see no bodies but just damaged cars and the local police I might shoot...but I do remember how I felt when that guy stuck out his camera...
I wouldn't hesitate to help anyone in need whether I have a camera or not...

I wanted to add this...
In the local newspaper the following day they ran a story of this accident and I must say the photographer was very kind to the family of the deceased...the angle of the photo showed what it needed to without showing the worst of it...my hat is off to him/her...

 

[photogdave]

You have to draw a line somewhere. The reporter is reporting a news event. The story further reports on bullying, teen depression, and callous snapshooters. It is informational and helpful, if it leads to further exploration and discussion of theses issues, like we're doing here.
Citizens snapping photos of the girl, whether in the process of dying or already dead, is not helping anything or anyone.

 

[crawdiddy]

And what does the family think about all of us reading the account in the niewspaper? What's the difference? Why is one disrespectful and the other acceptable?

 

[photogdave]

would it be ok/better if it weren't a camera phone?

I really don't believe anyone was implying that.

 

[photogdave]

And what does the family think about all of us reading the account in the niewspaper? What's the difference? Why is one disrespectful and the other acceptable?

See my post above.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

but the simple act of choosing to take a picture instead of helping her most certainly would further harm her.


bob

Agreed, it would certainly be harm through negligence. So, I wouldn't chose taking a picture over helping her if I could in fact help her.

There's no indication in the article as to whether those who took the cell phone shots could've helped her but neglected to do so.

 

[crawdiddy]

You have to draw a line somewhere. The reporter is reporting a news event. The story further reports on bullying, teen depression, and callous snapshooters. It is informational and helpful, if it leads to further exploration and discussion of theses issues, like we're doing here.
Citizens snapping photos of the girl, whether in the process of dying or already dead, is not helping anything or anyone.

What about amateur bloggers? Are they entitled to write about news events?

I'm not buying this at all.

 

[MartinP]

would it be ok/better if it weren't a camera phone?

Is that supposed to be a serious question ? At the very least it suggests that you haven't read the article and is disappointing given your position.

 

[bob338]

Is that supposed to be a serious question ? At the very least it suggests that you haven't read the article and is disappointing given your position.

the question seemed a bit disrespectful to me too.

bob

 

[jsrockit]

I couldn't do it... I couldn't even look at it to be honest.

 

[back alley]

all the good and judgemental people...

 

[crawdiddy]

I couldn't do it... I couldn't even look at it to be honest.

But you'll read a story about it, right?

 

[dcsang]

If the victim is dead, then the photographer is documenting the scene after the fact. How is this more disrespectful than writing a story about it, and publishing it in a paper for money?

As mentioned, a police officer documenting the scene or a news reporter documenting the scene (however I know of no newspapers that would really outright show a suicide victim - but then again, I'm in North America.. perhaps there are papers elsewhere that actually would go ahead and show such a thing) is perfectly acceptable in my opinion.

A bypasser who happens upon the scene who could have offered help (either to the victim or the ex-boyfriend or family member) but instead decides to take out a camera phone (or point and shoot or Leica M or Bessa R or what have you) for no other reason than to say "Hey, look at this cool street scene I shot !!" has no respect for the dead (or about-to-be dead), no respect for the victim's family/friends that may be present or, for that matter, no respect for themselves.

Just my opinion mind you - I just wouldn't do it.

Dave

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dan has to be right, logically. It is hard to construct a logical framework in which it is OK to write about it (or even discuss it here) but not to take a picture. The Vox Pop 'I was there' is greatly encouraged by the media, and this pushes it further.

Emotionally, I have much less of a problem in understanding why I (and others) wouldn't/shouldn't take the pictures.

But who remembers the picture 10 or 20 years ago about the fellow who fell onto a spiked railing and had a spike through his lower jaw, like a badly hooked fish? It appeared, I believe, in several newspapers.

Cheers,

R.

 

[crawdiddy]

Do we consider photography to be too powerful? Is that why so many people say they would not photograph a corpse? And yet no one has said that it's wrong to write a sensational news story about a suicide.

Why is photography special? Are we afraid we'll steal their souls?