WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGERY
It’s impossible to look at this photo without feeling horrified.
When you first see it, it’s hard to surpress a gasp. It’s not just the image – of a terrified man about to die – but the crass nature of the headline.
Is this someone’s life or a James Bond movie?
The man in the photo is Ki Suk Han, a 58 year old father from Queens who was pushed into the subway tracks and into the path of an on-coming train by “a deranged man” on Monday afternoon as he waited on the platform. Witnesses have reported that just after this photo was taken – showing Han frantically trying to lift himself up off the tracks, he was caught between the train and the platform and dragged to his death.
The front page of the tabloid newspaper – owned by Rupert Murdoch and edited by legendary Australian journalist Col Allen – has outraged readers and divided journalists.
The Atlantic Wire reporter Alexander Abad-Santos wrote:
There’s one big question about today’s intense cover of the New York Post: Why didn’t anyone help him? If there’s enough time to capture a dying man’s last moments before getting hit by an oncoming train that’s that worthy of a tabloid cover, couldn’t the photographer have lent a hand?
“Post freelance photographer” sounds like Abbassi got paid, “I just started running, running, hoping that the driver could see my flash,” explained Abbasi.
Getting a conductor’s attention with a flash doesn’t sound like the best idea to us.
There are reports from one witness that Han was pushed right before the train came and people on the platform were moving away from the ‘panhandler’ who pushed him and so couldn’t help in time.
Many tabloid photographers have rallied to the defence of Abbassi - all anonymously, after The Atalantic Wire approached them for their opinion on the morality of taking – and presumably selling- the photo. Said one:
There’s at least a dozen other people on that platform, any able-bodied person could have tried (assuming we actually knew how much time the victim had between the fall, and impact) to try and help him.
Interestingly, we don’t ask this of any other photographer covering other atrocities and far more violent scenes that move over wires every day from the Middle East and elsewhere. We’re never hearing the question: Why didn’t such and such a photographer help? New York isn’t Libya, but the job is the same – we document the human drama.
All terribly tragic. We weren’t there. Who knows what we might have done in the terror and drama of that moment. But what about the decision to put it on the front page with that headline?
UPDATE: The photographer who took the photo, R. Umar Abbasi, appeared on a US chat show to defend his decision to take the photo.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Is there any real public interest being served there? Is it even newsworthy or just ghoulish?
Comments
55 Comments so far
That poor man and his poor family. Not only do they have to deal with his tragic and horrific death, but that photo and that disgraceful headline. I am so very sad for them.
loading...
WE as a civilization, deserve everything we get!!!!…..and i suspect a lot of that will generally be pretty bad……
loading...
It is abhorrent that any newspaper would publish this photo, especially with those words. And WHAT kind of person can take a photo like that? When did getting a photo become more important than helping someone in need?
Overall I’m disgusted. The human race really pisses me off sometimes.
loading...
I feel sick!
loading...
Even if no-one could do anything to help, it is pretty disgusting to take a photo of someone’s last moments and publish it on the front page of a paper – let alone with such a headline.
It is a callous act and makes me feel very sad for the family of this man and the other people on the platform who were no doubt also affected.
loading...
I understand that this all happened so quickly but was it so vital that the newspaper publish this image..??? There have been allot of coverage of media taking photos of dead/dying and putting them out for the world to see without the permission of family and often before some family can be told… its disgraceful!
loading...
It’s Disgraceful and the paper and all associated with it should hang their heads in shame!
I am absolutely horrified that NO ONE… Not one single soul went to this man’s aid…. What is humanity coming too? Can find time to get the camera phone out and take the picture, but no time to run to his aid and desperately try to help lift him out….
loading...
Its not new in our society, the by stander effect has been around forever, sadly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese
loading...
Not having been there I can’t judge whether or not there was time to help but my 1st question is – Why aren’t there horizontal foot-rests along the side of platforms everywhere so that people can get a foot-hold back onto the platform if they fall ?………..No-one’s thought of it ?……Too much money to put them in place?
My other issue is the word “DOOMED”………..
I’m constantly critical of the wording journalists use (particularly on TV news) when describing deaths and the discovering of bodies after accidents, explosions , bush fires, road fatalities and so on………words like GRIM, GRISLY, GRUESOME, GHASTLY, horrific, savage, brutal, grotesque, – I’ve heard some appalling descriptions of deaths and I have to remind those journalists that they’re describing the tragic deaths of loved ones – someone’s family member, someone’s child.
I’ve actually rung newsrooms to complain about these “creative” descriptions – these are not horror movies they’re reporting on but people’s lives and untimely ends.
How must that poor man’s family be feeling ?
I suppose that image could serve as a caution to people – but that extreme wording ?
Sensationalist crap and lousy judgement.
Anything to sell a crummy newspaper.
loading...
It seems that the concensus is that it’s a terrible photo.
On the surface it is.
However, photographic journalism has helped change the way the world is. Does anyone remember the photo of the South Vietnamese Police Chief executing a criminal during the Vietnam war? Or the image of the little girl running from a napalm attack in Vietnam? These pictures helped bring an end to the Vietnam war because until the advent of photography the true horrors of war were not known by the general public.
Yes, they are confronting, but the horror of seeing this type of image can stir up public opinion and hopefully something positive can come of it. Perhaps better mental health facilities? I don’t know if it will, but the whole point of this type of journalism is to get people talking.
Just make sure that you’re talking about the right things.
loading...
I think that is totally amoral, to take a picture of something so horrible and sell it. AMORAL. I would also like to mention that my mum’s brother, some 40 years ago, ran to the aid of a man who lost his leg falling under a tram. My uncle made an emergency tourniquet out of his own shirt to stop the man bleeding to death. I don’t know the guy’s later fate but I applaud my uncle’s composure and doing the right thing in an emergency.
loading...
Disgusting. This is gutter journalism and whoever took this photo is a coward who took photos of a man about to die instead of helping. Using the flash to alert the driver? I don’t think so. If he was trying to attract the drivers attention and save the guy he would have ran waving his arms as fast as he could to get to the guy, not pause to whip out his camera.
This makes me sick. I can’t believe this happened, and I am shocked that this is the front page.
Repulsive.
loading...
Imagine his family seeing this photo…. Awful
loading...
Imagine the impact on his family, seeing this photo…. Awful
loading...
If you have time to take a picture, you have time to at least attempt to help. That’s all folks!
loading...
I have HAD IT HAD IT HAD IT with people standing around doing nothing at all. Situation after situation – it’s like those people at the Daniel Morcombe trial yesterday claiming they saw something suspicious. But did they do anything? No. For gods sake start doing something people!
loading...
The whole thing happened in less than 10 seconds. It’s easy to preach about the ‘right thing to do’ in hindsight, but it’s not always as easy to think straight during a crisis.
loading...
It’s called DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY – the more people are around, the more individuals think ‘someone else will do something.’
loading...
On the topic of the inactivity of crowds, psychologist Richard Wiseman advises that should you ever need help in such circumstances, your best bet is to look or point directly at people and ask for something specific, such as “help me up” or “call the police”. Of course, this is easier said than done in the heat of the moment, but it’s worth trying to remember.
loading...
On this note of what to do when you are in need of help – if you are being attacked or in a bad situation in which you would scream for help, it’s (sadly) better to scream, ‘FIRE’, instead of ‘HELP’ in a lot of circumstances.
loading...
I don’t get this scream “fire” thing. Won’t people look around, see no fire, and just go about their business?
How does that make them think to help you?
loading...
If someone in your street is yelling fire you are more likely to get up and go look Because it could be your house they are yelling about.
Once alert You are unlikely to (for example) look at the girl being dragged into a car and do nothing!
loading...
It’s an extremely disgusting way to use the image (not that they give a shit, look at all the bloody publicity) but I don’t think you can blame the people on the track for not helping (thinking of whipping out your camera and actually taking a photo is possibly a different matter though) – because think about it: the entire scene would have lasted maybe 10 seconds, maximum? Would you have run towards screeching, speeding train to lift a man out of deep hole? I reckon only an very rare person would’ve done anything beyond look on in horror.
loading...
Yuck – are we morphing in to a twisted version of The Capitol in The Hunger Games or what?
loading...
There have been psychological studies done on this. It sounds cynical, but there is a strong tendancy for people to ignore someone needing help if they are in a crowd, as they feel that the responsibility is shared.
Statistically, if you are attacked and scream out for help and there is only one or two people around to hear it- they are very likely to try and help you, because the onus is on them. If a crowd of people hear you, each individual feels that a tiny fraction of the onus is on them, and they also have to deal with a bunch of conflicting thoughts and instincts. Why is no on-else rushing forward? Is it too dangerous? Is there really a problem here or am I just imagining it? Why me? …etc. It takes a strong individual to step forward from a crowd in that situation, especially within split seconds. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases, what we see is that no-one does step forward. They move along, feel a bit guilty, and consiously or subconciously pardon themselves on the basis that no-one else acted either.
loading...
Its called “The By-Stander Effect”
loading...
I remember at school we were taught if you are in trouble and nobody is helping point someone out and say ‘you in the red shirt, help me’. If one person is singled out they are far more likely to help you.
loading...
As a journalist myself, I understand the “act with your camera aspect” and in most cases this is fair enough. But all it took was one person to reach out and save this man, one arm, one hand up. Anyone who didn’t help this man or attempt to, might as well have pushed him themselves.
Who is to say there wasn’t time to help. We don’t know if there was time because no one tried.
To publish this photo is incredibly disrespectful to this man and his family. If I was him I’d be haunted their arse.
loading...
CC tv footage?
This story reminds me of Kevin Carter – the famed photographer who took an image of a starving child in Sudan with a vulture in the background. There are different stories circling about the context in which the photo was taken. Carter committed suicide a year after the photo was taken.
loading...
Kate, I had the exact same thought. He may have acted on instinct, but I bet he will be haunted by the decisions he had to make.
loading...
It reminds me more of the girl in India who was filmed being assaulted for 45 minutes without intervention. In both that and this situation, if they had of forgotten their cameras and jumped in they might have actually stopped the awful outcome.
In Carter’s situation, there’s no immediate, short term action he could have taken that would have solved the problem. In all situations though, I’m sure they will be plagued with questions about their decision.
loading...
I got chills from that photo.
It’s often called the bystander effect (or sometimes Genevose syndrome) where the more people who could help, the less likely it is that someone will due to diffusion of personal responsibility. Photographers in particular often become bystanders beacuse they feel one extra step removed (via their lens) from taking moral responsbility or action for what is going on.
I have to say i had the exact same reaction when I saw that photo of the boy at schoolies asleep on the ledge, 11 stories up. I kept thinking to myself… who ever it was who took the time to reach for their phone and take a picture (rather than IMMEDIATELY running over to offer assistance) would never be able to forgive themselves if (in the time it took them to take that photo) the boy rolled off the edge and died.
Everyone was so intent on beating up on the boy IN the photo, but I don’t think I saw any articles critiquing the role of the person who TOOK the photo (although in all honesty, I didn’t do much of a search so I could be wrong).
The whole thing just makes me feel hugely berieved for that poor man and his family who must be in an absolute state of despair. I can only imagine how traumatic it must be to look at that image and I truely hope the newspaper who published the image provides some sort of compensation to the family for the suffering they have caused (perhaps in the form of donating the revenue from that days sales?- not that that would bring the person back or undo anything… but I cant help but feel they must take on some moral responsibility… )
loading...
With this image being printed on thousands of copies of the newspaper, and circulating online, it’s going to make it difficult for the family of Mr Han to grieve properly. Was the effect this image would have on the family ever taken into account by the New York Post editors?
loading...
This photo reflects the jaded state and attitudes of the world today, no one wants to get involved regardless of what it is. I am not surprised at all that no one went to this mans aid.
loading...
“We’re never hearing the question: Why didn’t such and such a photographer help? when we see it on A1 of The New York Times. ”
Clearly this person spends his entire life in a tabloid world, because he seems to have missed the fact that such questions *have* been asked about mainstream photojournalists.
loading...
English speaking people are very precious. Read a Mexican newspaper sometime. They’d show a photo of the guy AFTER he’d been hit by the train. This is meant to shock, it’s meant to make people ask why someone had to die. It’s meant to make you think. We don’t complain about photographers in other countries who film children being slaughtered. Photographers are meant to capture the moment…. Yes, it’s a tradegy, but maybe now people will step up and help the next time they see a fellow human under attack.
loading...
Showing a picture of the “after” just normalizes violence and tragedy.
I don’t think it encourages people to help at all. Watching other people help encourages others to help.
loading...
Don’t know that it’s working in Mexico. Hasn’t Mexico got a high murder rate? I don’t think showing gruesome photos is having the intended effect of making people want to help there. These pictures just appeal to our sense of morbid curiosity and over time we become immune to the images, leading to something more awful being shown to shock.
loading...
Not sure just how well that’s working in Mexico, don’t they have some of the highest rates of violence in the world? Seeing a picture of gruesome violence is not going to make people help next time, the only thing it will do is eventually make them immune to violence.
I do agree with you that we can be very precious, I just don’t think this is a good example of that.
loading...
The issue isn’t whether or not it is newsworthy. The issue is that on a platform filled with people, not one person stepped in to help. To think that man’s death could have been prevented if someone had thought to do something – other than whipping out their phone for a photograph.
loading...
AGREE!!
Creeps me out the shallowness demonstrated!!!
loading...
The one thing to remember here is that there is a maniac who just pushed a man in front of a train standing on the platform. Would you run near the edge of the track knowing he is there and could possibly just push you too? I wouldn’t!!
loading...
I do agree with you there. If the guy just fell in then I’m sure everyone would have rushed to his side. If they knew there was a good chance they would also be pushed, then the seconds they had to make their decision was probably taken up with understandable panic and confusion while weighing up the risks.
loading...
Sorry Melbmum, but all anyone knows about the man who allegedly pushed this poor gentleman onto the tracks was that he was disheveled, probably homeless and not in touch with reality.
I don’t think that he deliberately and consciously decided to push this man to kill him.
I don’t think that it helps to describe this ill man as a maniac. Nobody will approach those sleeping rough or disengaged from society if they believe that they are dangerous. This idea is possibly what drove the alleged perpetuator to react so disastrously; the assumption that everyone is acting malevolently drives people to react in defensive manners. However, it was reported that this man was upset that the deceased had declined to help him, which gives weight to any theory denouncing this man as “maniac”, “dangerous”, “psychopathic”. Perhaps it was just the end of that man’s tether and the result was disastrous.
Certainly not condoning the outcome, and I am sorry to have to read these things in the news, but perhaps we could play down the mental acuity or disease associated with the perpetrator. Perfectly sane people do horrible things too.
I do think that your assertion that you would help if you’d have been there indicates that you do have an ability to be benevolent. I value your opinion, I just wanted to highlight that you may have been making broad assertions based on the mental health of someone.
All the best,
-C
loading...
Sometimes manic is the correct word for someone “not in touch with reality” or having a psychotic episode. Whether he’s homeless or not is irrelevent in my mind. If he’s pushing people onto the tracks then I think calling him “dangerous” or “manic” is accurate and fair.
loading...
He pushed a man to his death. He is clearly out of his head and at that a maniac. The point being I wouldn’t put myself in harms way of this MANIAC for anyone!! If you say you would, you are telling porky pies!!
loading...
‘perhaps he was at the end of his tether and the result was disastrous”? Ummmm YEAH, and that makes him exceedingly dangerous!!! Someone to be avoided at all costs!! I see little between a dishevelled dangerous man and a maniac. He killed someone. Its just nit picking to give him a different title. This was not some little accident. I make no assessments of his mental capacity (you seem to have done a great job of that though)..rather stating the obvious. If he’s just thrown someone on the tracks theres a pretty good chance he could do it again!! Try sticking to the issue at hand rather than giving lectures on his UNKNOWN mental capacities!! -but have a nice day
loading...
Hi Melbmum,
Sorry if it seemed as if I was lecturing, didn’t intend to do any more than weigh up the pros and cons of your use of the term maniac.
Your first post described him as a maniac. So to ask me to stick to the facts and not lecture on this man’s unknown mental capacity is both redundant (I was responding to your assertion) and a little hurtful. In fact, I can’t help but feel like you may have taken some issue with me having my own opinion on this terrible event.
I only argued that people shouldn’t be so quick to write someone off as mentally disturbed, and therefore, dangerous. Maniac is an antiquated and derogatory term used to describe people who have mental health issues, as well as persons who have Cognitive issues in previous decade’s schools of medicine/psychiatry.
I will state again, I am not excusing nor condoning his behavior, nor the result. It is genuinely a horrific circumstance.
If you have the inclination, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this, Melbmum.
loading...
I’m not exactly disagreeing with you, but you must understand that we have hindsight bias and I don’t think any of us actually knows what we would’ve done in that exact situation. And if you automatically say that you would’ve run over and saved him, you’re probably wrong.
loading...
There is nothing newsworthy about that picture. That poor man and his poor family. I will not suggest the photographer should have saved the man because I wasn’t there and there are other witnesses there who could have helped him if there was time. But what possible reason is there to put a shot like that on the front page with that caption? I’m disgusted.
loading...
It is newsworthy, in that this man suffered a horrific, tragic fate that could befall anyone of us in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The image is disturbing yet I can’t look away, it tells you everything you need to know and you begin to feel the panic this poor man must have felt. A very powerful image.
My issue is less with why the photographer took the pic in the first place and more with the headline, which takes this from tragic news to abhorrent journalism. The insensitivity of the word ‘doomed’ removes all desperation and humanity from the situation and places it almost in comic book territory. Just appalling. Handled entirely wrong by the Post and I feel for the man’s family having to see this.
loading...
Well said, Carlie.
loading...
Completely agree Carlie.
Sadly it is an indictment of today’s society that when something happens, we now reach for the smartphone instead of reaching for whoever is in trouble’s hand.
The only way we can actively change this is by looking out for our fellow woman/man. It only takes one person to cause the ripple..
Realistically, the only people who should have seen these images were the authorities, not the tabloids, if at all.
The headline is insensitive and wrong on so many levels. The story should never have been placed on the front page. That poor man’s family will be forever haunted by that image.
loading...
Absolutely tragic. I do not believe the photographer was trying to alert the driver. He was getting the money shot & that is deplorable. I only hope for that poor mans sake who was murdered (not “hit by a train”) that there was no time between being pushed & the train coming for anyone to help, because if there was its unthinkable nobody tried to save him. RIP dear soul.
loading...
It’s a Murdoch paper.
’nuff said.
loading...