New York Post sensationalizes photo of man killed by subway train

You can't have a story about a photo and then not include the photo.

The term psychopath is overused and misunderstood.

Most psychopaths aren't dangerous and are not easy to identify. They live normal lives like everyone else.

What makes them psychopaths is their inability to feel sorry for others or to project their own emotional capability onto others. Therefore, they don't see anything wrong in ignoring the pain and suffering of others. Plus, they aren't able to predict the suffering of others, so when they commit horrible acts (ignoring a victim, photographing a victim, selling photos of a victim, or publishing photos of a victim) they cannot see the harm they cause to the people who love the victim (or even to people who can understand the emotional pain of his loved ones).

I have no doubt that there are many psychopaths in positions of power in the government and the media. They can easily climb to the top because they don't feel guilt when stepping on others to get there.

To a psychopath, he is the only human being in a world of robots.

I listened to the interview with the photographer, and while I don't entirely buy his version of events, particularly his detached automatic reflex to take pictures and trying to signal the train operator with his flash unit, I can't help but feel the paper's editors are no better for running the photo with that tasteless 'DOOMED' than the vile scum which pranked the hospital and shamed the nurse into committing suicide.

People can be hurt by decisions. When those decisions are made in the name of increasing sales or market share they are made poorly.

The right thing to do would be turn the photos over to the police and not run them at all. I'm not surprised the paper is run by News Corporation. The defects at the helm are not unique to the east side of the big pond.

Either I wasn't able to get to the right link, or there is absolutely zero deep thought in Sonderman's article : it is no more than a collection of quotes and links. Not worth a mention in DPreview news : I'm sure there are better articles to read on the subject.

My first thought : wasn't there anyone around to help this poor guy ?

A train usually takes hundred meters to stop, depending on its speed, so there was probably not much the driver could do, but using the fash to warn th driver ? That would just blind him, preventing him to see the problem. Sounds more like the photographer trying to justify himself after the fact.

How about we place the blame squarely where it belongs .. right on the vile creature that pushed this man onto the tracks (when it must have known the train was approaching, no less)

As they (Post) should be criticized. The real story lay with those who did nothing, drunk victim or not.

Bet that pic edition did not sell as that dim editor might have hoped, either.

TC Couch +1.

The people who were near the man and did nothing, were the bad actors, as this photog ran snapping his flash to warn the motorman.

It is too bad his pics did not pic up some of the people who now must live with themselves.

We have seen and listened to him tell his side, he is one stand-up person; a gentleman who does not deserve the bad press his erstwhile employer brought down on him.

Even if otherwise, the man was too drunk to think to lie down in the center, etc.

The pics are/were so dark, BTW, that the Post, who owns them for 24 hours exclusively, had to work to get the images...

I hope the cops work to get the faces of those who did nothing.

It's shocking to me how many of the people commenting here are ignoring the text of the actual story that accompanied the photo. First of all, the photographer was running towards the train trying to use his flash to alert the conductor, which the conductor later said he could see but could do nothing about. Second, after the accident, there was a doctor on scene that did all she could to save the man. It's not like he stood around shooting and submitted a portfolio of photos from the incident (although that would have been reasonable for a photographer to do)...this is likely just the most clear photo from what came out of him running and pressing the shutter button of his camera.

The photographer should be pushed in front of a train along w/ the guy who did the pushing. Add the NY Post's editor to that list and we'll make the world a better place.

He took 45 photos...internal flash would have been at full power w/ those dim conditions...it should have been more like 90 seconds instead of the 22 he claims. He just made a lot of excuses publically so the non-thinking public would think he didn't have time to do anything and the photos were just a mistake where he could crop stuff out...

Maybe DPreview is the company sensationalizing the photo, not the NY Post. After all the word sensationalize is a subjective and not something quantifiable. The NY Post headline is accurate -- the man is in fact about to die. I'm not a fan of the Post, but that's for many other reasons. A photographer photographs, a Newspaper prints the news -- both are behaving within the parameters of their job descriptions. And I agree with Gary regarding the current trend to vilify photographers. Weegee stated, "You can't be a nice Nellie and do photography." Additionally, if you want to see real black and white photography check out my site: http://www.danwagnerphotography.com I don't need a user name, I use my real name. "All the news that's fit to print." -- oops that's the other paper.

The photograph isn't a problem. Photojournalist capture real events all the time all around the world--that is our job. The sensationalized Headline of Doom--this man is about to die is deplorable and insensitive. This ongoing attack on photojournalist and aggressive hate towards us doing our jobs is ridiculous. The photo isn't horrible--the way the newspaper presented and the context in which is was presented is shameful. I don't think this should have been presented as a front page photo--but that's my opinion. What about all the war photographers? Are they despicable too for doing their job and photographing people getting shot and killed in battle? Stop vilifying photographers and photojournalism.

This is just the latest example of the media exploiting innocent people to make money.

How many times have we seen family members of people who have died being ambushed at their front door by TV crews?

The bottom line is that while this is offensive it is no more so than the way the media have treated people in the past.

It's clear the major media only cares about their own profits and most major media reporters only care about their career advancement. The suffering they inflict on innocent people-- relatives of killing victims, relatives of people who die in disasters, people accused of crimes but with no criminal record, etc-- apparently means nothing to them.

On a less severe note are the paparazzi who refuse to acknowledge that even famous people have some right to privacy, at least when they're in their own homes.

oh I did not have the time to save him, let's take a picture instead. may god help his family.

I guess all the journalists and photographers that captured the carnage of World War II, the Korean War, Viet Nam etc., were cruel, inhumane and devoid of compassion. How could they stand by recording historical events when they could have joined in. Heck, wouldn't have needed to fight to assist, just give a hand to the Medics on the battlefield. You know....try to help save lives. Damn them....a camera in hand on Iwo Jima when they could have carried medical supplies and applied pressure points!!!! I can never look at my camera in the same way, ever again.

IMHO the photograph on the front page isn't nearly as bad as the "DOOMED" headline.

The only consolation I can find in this whole inhuman demoralizing event, is the confidence that lawyers will be coming out of the woodwork to act for his surviving relatives to sue the New York Post into complete oblivion.

Typical Murdoc newspaper, never mind how his family may feel or the public for that matter, just so long as it sells newspapers who cares.

The New York Post has no morals and for that matter niether does the rest of Murdocs gutter press.

Wow, it's astonishing to hear people say they commend the photog for "doing his job" and contributing to the harsh and compelling world of PJ. Good Robot: you earned your wage - a small fee for the soul-stain of choosing self interest over basic human decency. When someone's instincts are to take pictures of a looming catastrophe as opposed to trying to avert it (like yelling "lie down in the middle of the tracks!" (a space that in most NYC stations will accommodate a person - if there aren't piles of garbage or spare rails filling it)) you really should question their humanity. I agree, something like this happens fast, but I take NYC trains every day and there's plenty of time to at least try to help. All you "REAL" photogs who pop off shots in an emergency situation for some pathetic "artistic glory" (cash), better hope a "FAKE" photog like me isn't around to shove your DSLR up your a**! (of course, after I've done my best to help anybody who might actually need a hand)

The Post is not a tabloid it is a daily newspaper that's been around since the 1950's. And you think the NY Times doesn't print that sort of photo, anyone remember the execution of the Viet Cong prisoner being shot in the head on a street in Saigon by a Vietnamese police officer in the aftermath of Tet 1968?

Those of you who pump their chests and boost " I would have saved him ", are just braggarts who have more than likely never been in a life and death situation. Finally, Poynter and many others, you can't have it both ways.

To do nothing and watch someone die when you could have tried to help is patheticly inhuman. To have your first instinct be to take a picture before you do nothing to help, is even worse. (It's nobody's "job" to stand by and do nothing while someone is killed when you could have helped in that 22 seconds prior to the death.)

Failure to render assistance no spin here please there is a real sickness in the worlds media plain and simple its time for a purge!

Not understanding that many bashing the photographer here.

The photographer is doing his work, it's to the publisher (in this case NY Post) to see this as news value and to the reader who sees this as relevant daily news. Bashing should be done to them.

I'm just happy I don't have to work as a PJ for such trash paper

If I were there with a camera handy, I would have taken the picture. It's not an action I would have thought about, grabbing my camera and taking the picture would have been automatic, providing, of course, that there was no way I could help that fellow back onto the platform.

The image is horrific, but it does depict the very worst aspect of the human condition.

People are so scared of death that we live our lives as if we were immortal. This photograph reminds us that our time here is limited, and that we should strive to get the most out of the limited time we have here.

A unimaginable horror for that poor fellow. I couldn't imagine it.

Are there no photographers here?

ICP's latest Weegee show was called Murder is my Business. This is photography. All photography is voyeurism.

ICP's current show has photographs by South Africans showing Zulu's and Xosa's doing terrible things to each other as they struggled for power.

Magnum stopped a meeting in NYC to document 9/ll.

George Rodger, a founder of Magnum, was the first photographer to enter an extermination camp (Belsen, Belsen) and documented it graphically and with excellent technique.

News (and street) photographers make a commitment to document the world. That is their job. What they think about what they see, and how noble they feel, is their concern, not the viewer's.

The photograph in question did no one any harm. If you don't like this kind of photography, don't read the tabloids --and stay out of museums.

I'm not a fan of the NY Post. Quite the opposite. However, this was a news story and the photo is strong and deserved to be published. As for helping the man -- it depends upon how much time there was. Lifting the man by the arms would have been incredibly difficult. The man should have stood in the archway in the concrete wall to his right. That's where train workers stand. The photograph was taken from far away -- equidistant from the train. The photographer isn't a superman.

I've lived in NYC most of my life. This kind of thing is so rare. Don't argue with the crazies. Stay away from edge of platform until train has stopped moving. You would be surprised how many people hang out by the edge.

Well, it's a tragedy, but the NY Post and photographer are not at fault.

From the photo it looks like if I'd been there he'd have lived.
I wouldn't have had a camera up for more than a quarter of a second : it takes large arm movements to sprint at full speed and that's the ONLY proper action to take.

Obvious.
I live in the North of England, we're human here, mostly.

Here in quebec, you would be charged for not attempting to help the man. We have this 'good sumaritan law' (sp).

The Post clearly is only looking for sensationalism. They are disgusting. I also wonder where anyone else was to help this man? Were no New Yorkers around? The photographer for one is an idiot, but that does not excuse all other people.

The New York Post is the bottom of the barrel. They publish for the mentally deficient, exploiting any and everyone to make money. This photographer chooses to be part of it. Not much of a life. And not somebody I'd want to know.

I wonder what WeeGee was like.
Is there a line you won't cross for a photo? Wondering the same about myself.

No amount of saying could excuse a person not to do something to save the fellow human being but taking a train of pictures (40+). The picture says more about the photographer and the NYPost editing manager than the tragedy in the picture. God bless us all.

How quickly we forget Eddie Adams' photo of General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan's execution of Nguyen Van Lem. Or, Kevin Carter's photo of the child and the vulture of the Sudan. (and yes, I realise Carter's photo was a matter of perspective and he likely chased the bird away)

Rather than beating them up on the internet, we simply gave them Pulitzers. Perhaps if this was on the cover of time magazine rather than the post, we'd all be looking at this a little differently...

It's simply journalisim, bringing you the worst, and best parts of humanity since the dawn of time. Shame on us for being so hypercritical of a situation none of us actually participated in.

The same happened here in the UK, but it was caught on CCTV, and was caused by the train guard (conductor in the USA). I'm not aware of anyone publishing pictures though, other than were released officially from the CCTV.

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2012/11/15-guard-is-jailed-for-train.html

From the photog himself:
"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 ...
I have to say I was surprised at the anger over the pictures, of the people who are saying: Why didn’t he put the camera down and pull him out?
But I can’t let the armchair critics bother me. They were not there. They have no idea how very quickly it happened.
They do not know what they would have done."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/anguished_fotog_critics_are_unfair_s4bWwIXfZlBR6wi2tQALyH

a bunch of ethical superheroes commenting on this dpreview non-story here, I see. who knew we had so many marvel xmen and women who regularly post in these comment sections.

Nobody can comment on what could have been made by the photographer to rescue this man. Of course I, you, everybody thinks that we would have dropped the camera and run to pull out of the tracks the potential victim but that's pure speculation, a dream, something possible to imagine AFTER, but very unlikely when you face the situation. We're all heroes in our soul and sofa...

Kudos to DPR not to post this shot and a simple prayer for this man and his family.

I like the DPReview approach of not publishing the photo (hence claiming the moral high ground), while still getting the financial benefit of lots of clicks on the back of a dead person.

I was going to post something but the character limit here is so low you can't make an argument for anything.