"Ghouls Took Photos Of Dying Suicide Girl"

The last moments of someone's life are significant. I fail to see how taking a picture of these moments is any different than say the first moments when we come in the world. I've done both and many moments in between in my time as a photographer. It's kind of sad when the do-gooders of the world impose their own sense of morality on a photographer's choices. You don't like it? Fine. Then don't look. No one is forcing you.

This issue is not about professional and amateur photography. Photographers of all sorts have a history of photographing and showing the human condition. While sad and not something everyone wants to see, someone dying is part of that condition. I don't see the moral issue.

To the people attempting to dictate what is right and wrong for the rest of us, thanks but no thanks. I'll decide for myself.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...
You said it yourself. On-the-job. It's useful.
 
zumbido said:
Unlike the intrepid professionals whose reporting is generally inaccurate, incomplete, or falsified. Not (usually) because of quaint things like political bias but because--shock of all shocks--they're of the same species as the amateurs. Some are competent, many others are ignorant, stupid, lazy, or venal.
Click to expand...

Do you have any facts to back up these pronouncements?
I though not...:rolleyes:
 
Bottom line: in a free society, we can photograph whatever we want in public. If we have poor taste, or poor skills, or lack a good editor, then so be it. We have the right to photograph in public. And keep in mind, that just because we snap a photo in a public place, that doesn't mean the photo will ever see the light of day, outside of the photographer's possession. If you walk up and tell me I should NOT have taken the photo, then that's your right also. But your opinion doesn't trump my right to make phptos. And for that matter, don't assume I will have the poor taste to pass it around to chaps at the pub. You have no idea what my intentions are.
 
Last edited:
zumbido said:
You and I have had this discussion before. Feel free to refer back to it for further detail. It's true that I might have a hard time backing up my particular pronouncement--that journalists are of the human species. You still haven't offered any precious facts to support the idea that "trained journalists" are magic. I won't be waiting for your reply, trust me. :)
Click to expand...
Not magic. Just better qualified.
End of.
 
crawdiddy said:
Bottom line: in a free society, we can photograph whatever we want in public. If we have poor taste, or poor skills, or lack a good editor, then so be it. We have the right to photograph in public. And keep in mind, that just because we snap a photo in a public place, that doesn't mean the photo will ever see the light of day, outside of the photographer's possession. If you walk up and tell me I should NOT have taken the photo, then that's your right also. But your opinion doesn't trump my right to make phptos. And for that matter, don't assume I will have the poor taste to pass it around to chaps at the pub. You have no idea what my intentions are.
Click to expand...

Hi Dan; I try to be careful of what's in the finder these days..
http://blogs.photopreneur.com/5-of-the-fastest-ways-to-get-sued

Some are PSing the Coke logos out and replacing with others to avoid trouble. Many Corps. have floors of lawyers waiting for any kind of action.
 
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...

Your welcome to your opinion, but assualting others because you don't agree with what they're doing is just as wrong.

As to the original question, I don't see any difference to taking pictures as to those that stand and watch. I'd either help or move along if I could not.
 
Every precise situation is different, and without having been there, it's hard to tell... The only reason I can imagine for documenting such scene after offering all possible help, would be being the only photographer there, and honestly considering such image would help the world more than hurt people. I don't know if I would be able to do it as I hate suffering and death too much...

Cheers,

Juan
 
I've always believed that the moment a person is dying is a very personal, sacred moment that another person shouldn't even see. Unless, of course, they're family. Never ever view images or videos for amusement or curiosity. When the beheading videos from Iraq were circulating during the war, I never wanted to see them. I have a friend that watched the first one on line and said he didn't feel right for several days afterward. He told me he wished he had never watched the video.

Life is sacred. God help us if we don't realize that now.
 
Last edited:
newspaperguy said:
That said, there's a huge difference between someone shooting for a living, someone who has to be there, and some looky-loo with a cell phone and a gore complex.
Click to expand...

photogdave said:
Journalists have MANY essential qualities bloggers don't have: education, experience, resources, editors to check your work...
Click to expand...

This.

Unfortunatly the world is not a nice happy place like many would love it to be, its a hard unhappy place where people die and where there is rape, murder and torture going on everyday.

A journalist has the job of interpreting that world and bringing it to peoples attention in a compassionate way, and thats the difference between someone snapping a pic on their camera phone to show their friends and laugh about how they have a pic of a dead girl, and a journalist who will place the photo in context of a story or a moral or a informative article.

Its not the taking of the photo, its how it is used, and thats what sets a working photographer apart from someone making a macabre holiday snap. Big difference.

Unfortunatly everyone these days wants to be happy in their own world and not have the atrocities of the world brought to their attention, that is what is destroying photojournalism.
 
The dimensions of what is sacred is not bounded by what is reasonable. Without reason, which sacred law will determine when reverence is required? Yours? Mine? All of them? One that most of us can agree with?

And with that choice made, what happens to those that "cross the line" and "harm" the sensibilities of others? Censure? Caning? Stoning? Re-education/Sensitivity Training?
 
bob338 said:
could it be that photography isn't so special but the last few moments of a persons life are? why not allow them their dignity
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think there's some basic issues of respect and empathy involved here. Glad to see there's others who feel the same.
 
after 40 years of watching humans, and almost 20 of browsing internet fora, i can't help thinking that most of the oh-i-would-never crowd would actually,
  • shoot
  • kick themselves for leaving the camera at home
  • kick themselves for not having the balls to shoot
we are what we are, so? it's not the shooting that makes you a scumbag. it's not reaching out to help whenever you're not shooting. you won't become a saint, or even a morally upright respectable citizen, because of a once-in-a-blue-moon impulse--it takes a lifetime of hard work. shoot what you want. post what you want. but then go out and help. today. now
 
Last edited:
I see the issue as one of simple humanity.
If you could give comfort and don't (because you are busy taking a picture) - then you lose points on my humanity meter
If you take a picture, thinking "this is rear gory, my friends won't believe it, I'm gonna post it on the Internet", then again you lose points in my book.
If you take a photo, and it has some redeeming emotion or purpose, in this case perhaps to somehow deter or prevent suicides, then maybe you have a good reason.
if you're just a voyeur, and this is an entertaining scene for you, or has some paparazzi commercial value, again you go down on my humanity meter.
 
does anyone really think that a photograph of a person who has just killed themselves is actually going to deter another suicidal person from ending their own life.
 
As for this being journalism: would any newspaper run suicide pictures these days? They did at one time, but not anymore.
 
antiquark said:
As for this being journalism: would any newspaper run suicide pictures these days? They did at one time, but not anymore.
Click to expand...

Newspapers? Nope, magazines, NGO's, local awareness groups, yes most definintly. Perhaps less stateside and the UK but definintly other parts of the world. German and French mag's and periodicals of various sorts are still willing to publish hard hitting stories as lng as they are presented in context and with a serious message behind them.

And yes when presentaed as part of a story raising awareness of suicide prevention the image may lead to greater knowledge of a suicide support group in the public mind, thus someone may go to that group when they are feeling suicidal and may not take their life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom