Not sure if it exists in the US, but I'm sure that in the UK, there's a law that says that the media can't show a victim's picture until their family have been informed. I hope they knew about it before the picture was printed and didn't find out about it from seeing the paper.
That doesn't bear thinking about, poor family.
I suspect that those that support the taking of photographs in that situation, including the photographer himself, would see it differently if it was one of their own - it's usually the way.
So those in the context of war have no right to privacy, dignity and respect?
What a massive double standard.
Can you point out where I said that, please? :rolleyes:
I was defending the point of view that sometimes ghoulish photography of the dying and dead IS understandable. Not for everyone - I don't look at it if I can avoid it - but in a historical and educational context it is more defendable than some random idiot taking a photo like this poor chap and the train.
Not sure if it exists in the US, but I'm sure that in the UK, there's a law that says that the media can't show a victim's picture until their family have been informed.
It's common practice that the police/press won't release names until the family have been told, but I don't think there's any law about it.
Not sure if it exists in the US, but I'm sure that in the UK, there's a law that says that the media can't show a victim's picture until their family have been informed.
I had to look this up in our office's copy of the editors' codebook. Here's a section about the code and ethics of photojournalism. [deleted] You can read it yourself if you download it from here: http://www.editorscode.org.uk/the_code_book.html Otherwise it's £5 for a print book.
Not sure if it exists in the US, but I'm sure that in the UK, there's a law that says that the media can't show a victim's picture until their family have been informed. I hope they knew about it before the picture was printed and didn't find out about it from seeing the paper.
Nope, no law.
But, it is part of the code of practice for photojournalists though, (and is I think), part of the codes of practice for newspapers and radio/TV broadcasters in the UK.
Only brain donors stand near the edge of an Underground platform when a train is approaching. I stand as far away as I can until it stops. It's too easy to get pushed by some backpacked moron who turns around without looking (which would be all of them).
I don't know why people are focusing on him, though, when they should be focusing on the safety of a train station. This photographer has unintentionally highlighted a safety issue.
Not only that, he's accidentally highlighted the bystander effect (a.k.a. the Genovese syndrome) and the diffusion of responsibility that comes with it.
So, you think he was just standing there with his camera at the ready in the hopes that someone would conveniently end up on that tracks that night?
One of the first things you are taught if you are venturing into photography, is that you must ALWAYS have your camera ready - this means it's on your shoulder, or even better, in your hand (not in a camera bag), the lens cap is off, it's switched on and set to whatever settings the situation demands. So no, I don't think he was hoping someone would fall on the tracks, however I am sure he had his camera ready, because he's a photographer, that's what they do.
Can you point out where I said that, please? :rolleyes:
I was defending the point of view that sometimes ghoulish photography of the dying and dead IS understandable. Not for everyone - I don't look at it if I can avoid it - but in a historical and educational context it is more defendable than some random idiot taking a photo like this poor chap and the train.
It was the implication behind the highly skewed logic you were using. Your argument is, in my opinion, a double standard.
Interesting programme covering high speed trains on right now.
SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTARY: How Do They Do It?
On: Quest (38)
Date: Monday 10th December 2012 (20 minutes left)
Time: 00:00 to 00:30 (30 minutes long)
Trains/Ballpoint Pens.
How do they build a rail network that can carry passengers at more than 300kmh? And how do they mass produce enough pens to keep us all scrawling away?
(3 Star)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marked By: 'Favourite: How Do They Do It?' marker
Keywords: Documentary, Science, Scientific, 3 Star
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.tv/?p=1&r=45488
A good video of what it is like to drive a train, why you need special skills and very good spatial awareness, as literally anything could happen at any time. That's why train drivers are well paid. It's a highly skilled job.
Leeds - Wakefield Westgate HST cab ride http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx1JTP3dHiA
And unlike a car, the lives of potentially hundreds of people are your responsibility.
The UK has the 18th largest railway network in the world and despite many lines having closed in the 20th century it remains one of the densest rail networks. It is one of the busiest railways in Europe, with 20% more train services than France, 60% more than Italy, and more than Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Portugal and Norway combined.[2] In 2010, there were 1.33 billion journeys on the National Rail network, making the British network the fifth most used in the world (Great Britain ranks 23rd in world population). Unlike a number of other countries, rail travel in the United Kingdom has enjoyed a renaissance in recent years with kilometres/miles travelled matching and surpassing the highs of the 1940s (see usage figures below). This is partly attributed to a shift away from private motoring due to growing road congestion and increasing petrol prices, but also to the fact that travelling in general (for all modes) has increased with affluency. [3]
It was the implication behind the highly skewed logic you were using. Your argument is, in my opinion, a double standard.
There was nothing wrong with my post and I think you knew what I was saying but just want an argument. Play with yourself, as I don't go for that game.
So you never look at wartime pictures, or photos of natural disaster aftermaths, or even yearly press awards? Or does your 'respect' not extend that far? How is the picture of a guy on NYC subway tracks worse than Stanley Forman's woman and child falling from a burning building? The latter has even won awards, and somehow the former is disgusting and an indication of what's wrong with the society today? Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't get it, what's the difference? This one (I should probably say warning, upsetting content) won a Pulitzer in 2011, it was published by numerous well-respected magazines and newspapers and I don't remember there being any uproar about the photographer being a monster. Is it just because the NYC incident happened in the so-called civilized world, 'hit home', so to say, whereas the suicide bombings and other war atrocities are happening somewhere 'out there' and so aren't as relevant to most people's everyday lives?
That's completely different. Wartime pictures and pictures of natural disasters have meaning, they convey a message. Taking a picture of a man who was pushed onto train tracks, and to his death, do not. How are those things even comparable?
They didn't have time to help the poor bloke, but they managed to get their cameras out, turn them on and take a photo. People make me sick sometimes.
I wouldn't have helped him unless he was substantially lighter than me, or someone else was going to help.
Unless you know the body weights of those involved, there's no way you can say you'd have helped out - unless you have no idea of GCSE Physics in which case you might - along with a lot of dim news anchors who obviously do not.
A good video of what it is like to drive a train, why you need special skills and very good spatial awareness, as literally anything could happen at any time. That's why train drivers are well paid. It's a highly skilled job.
Leeds - Wakefield Westgate HST cab ride http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx1JTP3dHiA
And unlike a car, the lives of potentially hundreds of people are your responsibility.
The UK has the 18th largest railway network in the world and despite many lines having closed in the 20th century it remains one of the densest rail networks. It is one of the busiest railways in Europe, with 20% more train services than France, 60% more than Italy, and more than Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Portugal and Norway combined.[2] In 2010, there were 1.33 billion journeys on the National Rail network, making the British network the fifth most used in the world (Great Britain ranks 23rd in world population). Unlike a number of other countries, rail travel in the United Kingdom has enjoyed a renaissance in recent years with kilometres/miles travelled matching and surpassing the highs of the 1940s (see usage figures below). This is partly attributed to a shift away from private motoring due to growing road congestion and increasing petrol prices, but also to the fact that travelling in general (for all modes) has increased with affluency. [3]
Comments
That doesn't bear thinking about, poor family.
I suspect that those that support the taking of photographs in that situation, including the photographer himself, would see it differently if it was one of their own - it's usually the way.
Can you point out where I said that, please? :rolleyes:
I was defending the point of view that sometimes ghoulish photography of the dying and dead IS understandable. Not for everyone - I don't look at it if I can avoid it - but in a historical and educational context it is more defendable than some random idiot taking a photo like this poor chap and the train.
It's common practice that the police/press won't release names until the family have been told, but I don't think there's any law about it.
I had to look this up in our office's copy of the editors' codebook.
Nope, no law.
But, it is part of the code of practice for photojournalists though, (and is I think), part of the codes of practice for newspapers and radio/TV broadcasters in the UK.
Yes - that would be the 'Muslim effect' - Person A is murdered by Person B but focus and outrage is geared towards the Muslim in close vicinity.
Bright folk, eh.
It was the implication behind the highly skewed logic you were using. Your argument is, in my opinion, a double standard.
He was there taking photographs on a separate assignment.
SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTARY: How Do They Do It?
On: Quest (38)
Date: Monday 10th December 2012 (20 minutes left)
Time: 00:00 to 00:30 (30 minutes long)
Trains/Ballpoint Pens.
How do they build a rail network that can carry passengers at more than 300kmh? And how do they mass produce enough pens to keep us all scrawling away?
(3 Star)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marked By: 'Favourite: How Do They Do It?' marker
Keywords: Documentary, Science, Scientific, 3 Star
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.tv/?p=1&r=45488
Copyright (c) GipsyMedia Limited.
Leeds - Wakefield Westgate HST cab ride
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx1JTP3dHiA
And unlike a car, the lives of potentially hundreds of people are your responsibility.
More info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_circuit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Train_Protection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_Protection_%26_Warning_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Rail_Traffic_Management_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token_%28railway_signalling%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_signalling
=
The UK has the 18th largest railway network in the world and despite many lines having closed in the 20th century it remains one of the densest rail networks. It is one of the busiest railways in Europe, with 20% more train services than France, 60% more than Italy, and more than Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Portugal and Norway combined.[2] In 2010, there were 1.33 billion journeys on the National Rail network, making the British network the fifth most used in the world (Great Britain ranks 23rd in world population). Unlike a number of other countries, rail travel in the United Kingdom has enjoyed a renaissance in recent years with kilometres/miles travelled matching and surpassing the highs of the 1940s (see usage figures below). This is partly attributed to a shift away from private motoring due to growing road congestion and increasing petrol prices, but also to the fact that travelling in general (for all modes) has increased with affluency. [3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Great_Britain
I can't get over how naive some people are. :eek:
There was nothing wrong with my post and I think you knew what I was saying but just want an argument. Play with yourself, as I don't go for that game.
It is dangerous. I panic whenever I see other people standing on the edge of a platform, never mind myself.
That's completely different. Wartime pictures and pictures of natural disasters have meaning, they convey a message. Taking a picture of a man who was pushed onto train tracks, and to his death, do not. How are those things even comparable?
I wouldn't have helped him unless he was substantially lighter than me, or someone else was going to help.
Unless you know the body weights of those involved, there's no way you can say you'd have helped out - unless you have no idea of GCSE Physics in which case you might - along with a lot of dim news anchors who obviously do not.
ETA. Forgot to post this.
Gives an interesting insight.
Class 444 Cab Ride Waterloo to Basingstoke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LSG-WnUWiw