*****
I like that the photographer secured help for the girl! I wouldn't have hesitated to run this story. Maybe it's because it has been so long since this took place and that wound has somewhat healed in my head but I think this photo does a great job illustrating war. It shows the humanity side of the attacks and that war has no limits.
*****
I agree with the publication of the
picture. I understand its controversy of
not having identified the man (something that must always be done).
IN weighing whether the picture hurts
people more than whether helping people I believe the visual representation
that this picture has helps people across the world under stand was happening
on that morning in September.
The photo journalist may have been able to minimize the emotional harm to the families of the people who died on that building that day. But, I still believe he should post the picture.
The photo journalist may have been able to minimize the emotional harm to the families of the people who died on that building that day. But, I still believe he should post the picture.
My only concern is that I read
online that a caption for the picture claimed that the man fell head first and
straight down the building, while eye witness claim people were tumbling as
they fell out of the building
*****
1. I think that since the man was not
identified, it was ok to publish the picture for the world to see and
take in. It really was "iconic" and captured the terror and shocking
reality of the kind of death the victims of 9/11 faced that day. I think
if the man was identified and had a grieving family that would rather
have not seen their loved one fly through the air to their death it
would be like a "second wound".
2.
I would have published the image if
I where the photographer. It is the truth, though frightening. I would
not publish it in a biased way, with some kind of caption that
indicated false accusations, for example. I would not publish it with
some fake story to about the man to try and make people feel something I
want them to feel either, because the picture it itself would do that
for me.
*****
1. I do agree with the action taken by this photographer. There were so
many more gruesome, emotional, and visibly shocking photographs that
could have been published. I think that the photographer took the
correct course of action by publishing this photo because it tells an
important part of the horrific story of 9/11 without sensationalizing
it. There is a sense of calm that is unique to this photo when compared
to many other photos of the same event. I think it drew in readers
because it told a story that was different than expected of the
horrendous terrorist attacks. Yes, it is still shocking and gruesome in a
way, but there's an aspect of peace and clarity through all of the
confusion that occurred that day. This photo, I think, was a good
example of reporting on a newsworthy event without sensationalizing it.
2. If I were the photographer, I would have taken the same course of action by submitting the photo to my editor for publication in the next morning's paper. As a photographer myself, I understand what he and his coworker meant by just knowing when a photo is the one. I know that acts of terrorism get almost too much attention by the media today, but 9/11 was a special circumstance because it was on such a grand scale and within the borders of our country. I don't think that the media neccessarily encourages terrorists, but I think that the benefits of informing the public, especially about a topic as important as 9/11, outweighs the risk of encouraging terrorists.
2. If I were the photographer, I would have taken the same course of action by submitting the photo to my editor for publication in the next morning's paper. As a photographer myself, I understand what he and his coworker meant by just knowing when a photo is the one. I know that acts of terrorism get almost too much attention by the media today, but 9/11 was a special circumstance because it was on such a grand scale and within the borders of our country. I don't think that the media neccessarily encourages terrorists, but I think that the benefits of informing the public, especially about a topic as important as 9/11, outweighs the risk of encouraging terrorists.
*****
A. I do agree with the photojournalist in this
instance. He keeps the man’s privacy by not identifying him and it gives a
different look into that tragic day. I
think had it been an image of the man hitting the ground from jumping out of
the Twin Towers it would have been a different story.
B. I would have taken the same exact picture.
This is a terrible day in the United State’s history and to get every picture
you can it is necessary. By taking this picture I am seeking the truth about
how hundreds of people felt inside that building: helpless and not dying in
that tragic fire. They decided to make that jump out of the building for
different reasons and to seek the truth pictures like this are needed.
*****
-I agree with the course of action taken by the photojournalist. I believe that the photo supports the rule to give voice to the voiceless. The man was not identified and he is an unofficial source of information that whose actions are equally valued.
-I would have posted the photograph because it gives voice to the voiceless. I wouldn't slander the individual and I would maintain objectivity, just as the photojournalist has done.
*****
1)
I completely agree with the course of action
taken by the photogjournalist in this situation. I remember when I first saw
this picture, and then again when I fully iunderstand what it was conveying. As
a child (I was in second grade) when I first saw the picture, it seemed scary.
Someone was jumping from a building because they didn’t want to burn to death.
Looking at it later on in life, I see something so raw, so poetic about the
image. Evevn though it does not actually show a clear face (although the family
could tell who it was), it is a human. You put yourself in his shoes, or at
least try to. What had happened was so horrific, so unspeakable, that he had
two choices: burn to death in a firey, smoke-ridden building or jump. Yet, he
didn’t just fling himself out of the window-he dove, almost gracefully, into
the city below. It was if to say even though he couldn’t control his fate, he
could still maintain his dignity and the way in which he died. When bodies were
strewn miles from the building, people in horrific states and blood everywhere,
this image provides a moment of serenity from the situation. Is this libel? No,
I highly disagree. Yes, it is photographing someone in their private, precious
moments leading up to their death. But it is also recording the humanistic side
of this issue.
2)
If I was a reporter, I would most definitely
publish this picture. As a reporter, I could not do anything to stop this man
from jumping. I was merely a spectator in a horrific event that day. I was not
intending to defame someone’s image or cause harm to their family. In fact, you
can barely make out who the person is in the photo. I was trying to capture a
moment in history that would make people think differently about the attacks.
The number of people who died…more than 3,000, seems like a number. Until you
are up-close and personal. Until you witness it with your own eyes. By
publishing this picture, people around the world could understand that each one
of those “numbers” were a human life.
*****
1. 9/11 image: Some could consider this picture an exploitation of this man's death, but I believe with this photo it is not an exploitation but simply the capturing of life as history has been being made. As it said in the article the camera doesn't determine whether the person is dead or alive but just captures what is in their frame. 9/11 was a tragic event, in which people need to be aware of the horrible accounts that took place to bring the day of mourning to light. Richard Drew, the photographer in this instance, was just covering what was happening. Drew did not publish a photo of the man once he hit the ground, but showing him in free fall which is not death, which could have been captured instead. The photo shows fear and desperation, which speaks entirely to the mood of that event. I would have still taken and published this photo of the Falling Man.
*****
In the case
of the “Falling Man” image, I do agree with the photo the photojournalist took.
I personally, am very fond and a huge supporter of the idea of photography and
the message and meaning behind every photo – professional and personal. This
photo is a telltale sign of the pain, hardships, and terror that the victims of
the 9/11 terrorist attacks had to endure when it was taken place. An article or
a video can only give you so much – since its reason for why it’s showing or
the message behind it is more obvious. A photo, like this one, on the other
hand, forces you to analyze it and almost put yourself into the mindset of the
person being photographed. Looking at this photo you can feel the emotion and
hopelessness of the man who fell to his death trying to escape the fire and
smoke within the building. It adds to the emotion and seriousness of how
powerful the terrorist attacks of that day really were, whether you are a
citizen of the US or not. The photo, in a sense, tells you basically the
marco-idea of the article without even you having to read it. In any given case, if I were an editor for a
newspaper on Sept. 11, 2001, I would have posted and published the same article
with the same exact image.
On the
behalf of values and ethically speaking, the photograph isn’t harmful to
neither the man’s, Jonathan Briley, identity or the Briley’s family identity
due to the fact the “falling man” has not been wrongfully target, defamed, or
slandered. Also, although it is a hard image to see and may be a painful
“wound” to open, it helps it readers, particularly Americans, understand the
seriousness of that situation and helps inspire patriotism.
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment