"Ghouls Took Photos Of Dying Suicide Girl"

Not in a million years would I do this, and if I saw someone doing it I would probably go out of my way to shove them away and out of the scene.

I'm sure someone will disagree but I've got my opinion, you've got yours, time to suck it up.

For me these people crossed a very defined boundary in my view of ethics and I struggle to find an explanation of what would cross into somebody's mind to think taking a photo of a dying person who committed suicide is a OK thing to do.

Vicky
 
Lilserenity said:
For me these people crossed a very defined boundary in my view of ethics and I struggle to find an explanation of what would cross into somebody's mind to think taking a photo of a dying person who committed suicide is a OK thing to do.
Vicky
Click to expand...

I'm sure most are not troubled by, say, the Goering suicide picture. Served a necessary purpose, I might add. Not a job I'd want, though.
 
Lilserenity said:
Not in a million years would I do this, and if I saw someone doing it I would probably go out of my way to shove them away and out of the scene.

I'm sure someone will disagree but I've got my opinion, you've got yours, time to suck it up.

For me these people crossed a very defined boundary in my view of ethics and I struggle to find an explanation of what would cross into somebody's mind to think taking a photo of a dying person who committed suicide is a OK thing to do.

Vicky
Click to expand...

Dear Vicky,

This is another interesting example of what one would or would not do, and what is legal.

I would not photograph the dying girl, even though it is legal to do so and even though I fully accept the point that logically there is no difference between writing about it and photographing it. I just wouldn't. It's not in good taste.

But equally, I would not commit a common assault, breaking the law, by attacking someone who was taking the picture. To me, that is morally similar to taking the picture: 'morally' in the sense of 'good or bad for civil society'.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
But equally, I would not commit a common assault, breaking the law, by attacking someone who was taking the picture. To me, that is morally similar to taking the picture: 'morally' in the sense of 'good or bad for civil society'.
R.
Click to expand...

Sorry it's something I feel strongly about, if pushing someone away from the scene in this instance made me liable to prosecution then so be it, I just could not live with myself and stand by and mutter about it with distaste after the event. It should be noted though I have never ever slapped or shoved anybody -- so my reaction isn't something I have a record of doing, nor hope I ever have to.

Of course I am hypocritical in what I consider right and wrong, I'm human, it's just the way I feel about this issue and I might as well be honest about it in my response.

Vicky
 
PKR said:
Warhol was a strange guy. Go have a look at Avedon's photo of Warhol's stomach. It should be easy to find. His face, as I recall, isn't in the photo (Avedon did a head shot too, it's a different image).

here it is:
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Richard_Avedon/3.L.htm
Click to expand...

Warhol was strange but the link is to a Frida Kahlo paining: El suicido de Dorothy Hale. It's about a young socialite, Dorothy Hale, who jumped to her death from a tall building in Manhattan 11 years prior to McHale.
 
I don't know. Without being there I just can't say.

I did photograph my grandmother while she was dying. She was in the hospital, had had a stroke. I spent a fair amount of time there, holding her hand, talking to her, just sitting there with her. And also took some pictures. She was most certainly dying at the time and passed shortly after.

Photography is part of how I interact with and handle the world around me. It's very personal.

A nurse took offense, but taking those pictures was important for me. I don't know if that makes me a ghoul, tasteless, or maybe just selfish.

I don't know if I'll ever share those photos, even with family that's in them. They're difficult and painful to deal with. I rarely look at them. Thinking about them is hard.

I'm glad I have them.
 
When I first read this story, I thought it was just awful that someone could take photographs of the dead or dying, just because they could. I still feel that way, it's hard to understand how someone could do that, although I guess everyone has their own motives for doing so.

However, every day, photographers are applauded and given awards for taking pictures of the dead or dying in war zones.

Is it terrible to take a photograph of the dead or dying in a "civilized" city, using a mobile phone, but if you are in an "uncivilized" nation, who worship a different god to you, and have different colour skin, it's OK?

I'm not saying that I think the above is completely the case, but it's interesting how war photographers are held in high esteem, whilst sending us back photographs of the most appalling scenes of people blown apart. But had they done that whilst back at home walking down their local street, they'd be vilified. Or is it just because we think of people doing it with mobile phones as nasty little kids getting a sick thrill, but a war photog as a pro just doing his job?
 
Lilserenity said:
Sorry it's something I feel strongly about, if pushing someone away from the scene in this instance made me liable to prosecution then so be it, I just could not live with myself and stand by and mutter about it with distaste after the event. It should be noted though I have never ever slapped or shoved anybody -- so my reaction isn't something I have a record of doing, nor hope I ever have to.

Of course I am hypocritical in what I consider right and wrong, I'm human, it's just the way I feel about this issue and I might as well be honest about it in my response.

Vicky
Click to expand...

Dear Vicky,

Yet another interesting dichotomy of views. You've never pushed or hit anyone - but you think you would here.

At school, I had a reputation in some quarters as a 'hard man' whom it was best not to cross. This was easily gained. I was threatened with the 'bumps' on my birthday; 14th, I think. I told them not to do it. The didn't believe me. Four lads grabbed me: one to each hand, one to each foot. I pulled in my arms and legs, then punched and kicked out. Result: four boys lying whimpering on the ground, kicked/punched in the goolies.

When he could speak again, one of them said, "Why did you do that?"

I replied, "Because I told you I would."

I never had to hit anyone else again. The purpose of violence is to put the other person down, not to express your disapproval. Three of my dearest friends - Neil, John and Aditi - had the same reputation, for the same sort of reasons. None of us likes violence - I have never started a fight - but when you use it, against someone who is already assaulting you, then use it properly.

Cheers,

R.
 
Paul_C said:
I don't know. Without being there I just can't say.

I did photograph my grandmother while she was dying. She was in the hospital, had had a stroke. I spent a fair amount of time there, holding her hand, talking to her, just sitting there with her. And also took some pictures. She was most certainly dying at the time and passed shortly after.

Photography is part of how I interact with and handle the world around me. It's very personal.

A nurse took offense, but taking those pictures was important for me. I don't know if that makes me a ghoul, tasteless, or maybe just selfish.

I don't know if I'll ever share those photos, even with family that's in them. They're difficult and painful to deal with. I rarely look at them. Thinking about them is hard.

I'm glad I have them.
Click to expand...

This situation is different from the OP's, but is important to think about. My grandfather died a couple years ago and I was unable to visit him prior or after. He was dieing from pancreatic cancer, at home. My eldest brother, who lived close to my Grandfather in Alaska, took several photos of him as he was close to passing. The photos are blunt. They do not cast a light of calmness or peace. It shows the real situation, my grandfather in pain, withering (literally) away. Even with such harshness in the photos, I am glad he took them. I've only looked at the photo twice, but I will always keep it.

In a very sad way, I find the photo of the suicide victim that jumped from the 86(?) story building beautiful. She looks at peace. Let me be clear that I am very much against suicide. I work as a registered nurse in a behavioral health clinic (and in the past in an inpatient psychiatric unit) and frequently work with people who have attempted suicide or have major depression. Should that girl in OP's article been one of my patients, I would have feelings of anger at the photographer. But, in the general sense of the question, I do not think the taking of such a picture is wrong. Perhaps in OP's article it maybe (not enough evidence of either), but I do not think that there is a clear answer or set of rules to govern ones action in this regard. There is no black and white. Rather, I see the world different hues of grey. Some see the world in 8 bits of grey, some in 16 bits, some in 256 bits.
 
Regarless of whether she was already getting help or not, I don't get why anyone would want to keep a picture of a dying stranger.
 
zumbido said:
Would it have been newsworthy if she were pushed down? Then what would the professional have done differently?

(I disagree with your proposition, the last century is full of "professional" photos just like this one that are purely voyeuristic with no "news" value, but let's just grant it anyway.)
Click to expand...
I was referring to the pedestrian incident Mike photographed.
As to the suicide, had a professional been on the scene they would have stayed well away from the girl and let emergency services do their job. Their training and experience would likely lead them to make photos of the scene in the most respectful way possible, showing the emergency people doing their job, maybe getting crowd reactions, without going for blatant and gruesome shots of the poor girl's body.
Amateurs tend to go for the gruesome body shots because they think that's what the story is. Pros know better.
 
zumbido said:
Right, so was I.



Pros know their rote, pre-written story better. The crowd's reaction to the jumper isn't any more of a story than which sections of her skull are deformed. We all know how a crowd reacts, and have thousands of pictures of it already--unless there is something unique about this reaction...

I think this is a good example, with all due respect, of how "pros" in every field (mine included) manufacture their importance, particularly after a certain threshold or saturation has been reached.
Click to expand...
Fine. The quality of new reporting has gone so far downhill already because people with attitudes like yours believe non-trained, non-payed amateurs can deliver the goods just as well as pros. I'd love to see what happens if every single professional news person walks off their job and hands the keys to the fifth estate over to the bumbling amateurs.
I'll be sitting in my recliner laughing my ass off! See you in the funny pages!
 
Of course it's distasteful to take photos of a dying person in such a way but is that really what's wrong with humanity? It's not like this is anything new. People have a reflex to point their cameras at anything memorable or unusual that happens. Be it sunsets, funny street signs or dead people on the pavement. It used to be mostly tourists who did that because they happened to have a camera with them but today everyone has a camera all the time.
Sure, it's bad taste but there are many things I worry more about than that.
 
Do we have the right to photograph an instant, just because it takes place in public? If a pantomime artist or street actor puts on a show on the street, he or she has made a choice to give a performance to the audience. However, the mentally unstable person jumping from a building is not giving a performance, but may be totally absorbed in his or her inner world.

Having worked in a psychiatric ward, I can assure you that sometimes people do things - in front of other people, pasients or staff - that they normally would not do. It may sound strange, but sometimes people say thank you afterwards for having forced them out of a situation where they for instance wanted to run completely naked down the hall...
 
photogdave said:
Fine. The quality of new reporting has gone so far downhill already because people with attitudes like yours believe non-trained, non-payed amateurs can deliver the goods just as well as pros. I'd love to see what happens if every single professional news person walks off their job and hands the keys to the fifth estate over to the bumbling amateurs.
I'll be sitting in my recliner laughing my ass off! See you in the funny pages!
Click to expand...

Untrained amateurs?

What sort of TRAINING (as distinct from education) have most journalists historically received, apart from on-the-job?

Journalism college is a recent and self-defeating invention. We ALL start(ed) out as amateurs.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom