Extra Credit for Final
1) The man in the photo was a 58 year old who was panhandled and pushed onto the tracks, he wasn't strong enough to get himself out. The photographer was trying to stop the train by showing driver the flash of his camera.
2) The photographer claims that he was trying to help by taking the photos since he wasn't strong enough to save the man himself.
3) I think the photo itself isn't bad, we know what happened and we can identify the man because of it. However, because it's causing a bunch of controversy I think it shouldn't have been taken.
4) I think that he should've tried to help the man get out before taking the photos. Next he should've asked for help from other people. If all of this were to fail, taking the photos was the most he could do.
5) I don't think it was important enough to get the public in on. It was an interesting story, so if they did it to get more readers it probably worked, but I don't think it was a good idea to let everybody see this debate.
6) I think stopping bad things from happening should be more important as a photojournalist, but that's not always the case.
7) If someone's life is in danger, the photojournalist should get involved. Someone's life is more valuable then getting an interesting photo. This doesn't apply to unstoppable things, however. If something bad happens and the photographer can't do anything to help, then getting a photo is better then nothing.
8) I think that photojournalists shouldn't influence most things, their job is merely to take photos. Faking a photo is bad, but once again, if someone's life is at danger the photojournalist should be obligated to do something.
9)"How does “taking pictures” tell a conductor to stop a train? Huh? Is this photographer guy a moron? Throw down your camera and run to help the guy. If you fail, at least you tried. Taking pictures isn’t trying. What conductor would think, “Oh, look, someone’s taking pictures…maybe I should stop the train.”" Makes a lot of logical sense in my opinion.
2) The photographer claims that he was trying to help by taking the photos since he wasn't strong enough to save the man himself.
3) I think the photo itself isn't bad, we know what happened and we can identify the man because of it. However, because it's causing a bunch of controversy I think it shouldn't have been taken.
4) I think that he should've tried to help the man get out before taking the photos. Next he should've asked for help from other people. If all of this were to fail, taking the photos was the most he could do.
5) I don't think it was important enough to get the public in on. It was an interesting story, so if they did it to get more readers it probably worked, but I don't think it was a good idea to let everybody see this debate.
6) I think stopping bad things from happening should be more important as a photojournalist, but that's not always the case.
7) If someone's life is in danger, the photojournalist should get involved. Someone's life is more valuable then getting an interesting photo. This doesn't apply to unstoppable things, however. If something bad happens and the photographer can't do anything to help, then getting a photo is better then nothing.
8) I think that photojournalists shouldn't influence most things, their job is merely to take photos. Faking a photo is bad, but once again, if someone's life is at danger the photojournalist should be obligated to do something.
9)"How does “taking pictures” tell a conductor to stop a train? Huh? Is this photographer guy a moron? Throw down your camera and run to help the guy. If you fail, at least you tried. Taking pictures isn’t trying. What conductor would think, “Oh, look, someone’s taking pictures…maybe I should stop the train.”" Makes a lot of logical sense in my opinion.
Comments
Post a Comment