hels1977 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 i udnerstand your point, but i think there is a big difference between photos being used in an appeal and people taking photos of a car accident Yes I agree. It's just I think we should be careful of generalising that all media of tragedies is bad if it's supplied by the general public, it can and does serve a purpose and whether people like it or not - that is exactely how media reporting works. Reporters can't be everywhere at once so they frequently rely on the public to supply material and they pay handsomly for it. However, there was absolutely no need to take photos of the driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuey Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 the other possibility is thats its just the Star getting their stories off SF again. Read the thread, copy the picture and see what people have posted an hey presto you have an article that took no leg work and cost net to nothing. We did all the work again. The pictures posted on here where of a damaged bus, no one was in it when the photo was taken and no ones rights where breached. I think theres a bit of over reaction going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hels1977 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Precisley my thoughts Cuey. The OP said following on from the thread yesterday, when it wasn't really related. The photos posted yesterday were of the buses, not the driver. As stated in the other thread, the photos did serve a purpose, people saw how bad the accident was, sympathy for the drivers and passengers involved and to make them think twice before driving home perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troubledjoe Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 this is taken from the newspaper article: MOBILE phone users have been slammed for taking photos of a seriously injured driver as he lay trapped in the wreckage of a bus - and posting crash pictures on the internet. so it looks as though people WERE taking pics of the driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hels1977 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Or a media exaggeration to make a story from a base provided on a local internet forum. Either way, we'll never know because I for one won't be asking for proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmist Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Playing devil's advocate for a while though - why shouldn't people take the photos? So long as they are not actually getting in the way of emergency services or anyone else. and assuming that they cannot do anything useful instead, surely it should be up to them what they do? This same sort of question is asked of photojournalists taking shots of various tragic scenes - the difference of course being that it's their job, but moralistically there cannot be much between the two, and photojournalists are accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 just remind me again which tv stations showed the formula one driver catching fire. or the events at hillsborough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troubledjoe Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 there is a difference between photojounalists taking pics to document events for news items and people taking pics for their own benefit. im a photographer and totally understand why people might take these pics, BUT if you were the man in the accident would you really want every tom, dick and harry taking photos of you when you were scared and in pain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmist Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 there is a difference between photojounalists taking pics to document events for news items and people taking pics for their own benefit. im a photographer and totally understand why people might take these pics, BUT if you were the man in the accident would you really want every tom, dick and harry taking photos of you when you were scared and in pain? That's what I was saying though - to the man in the accident it makes no difference if the person shooting photos is a pro or a guy off the street with a camera phone. Would I want it? Probably not - but that doesn't mean I would want them to be banned from doing it, or for people to have equipment wiped or confiscated for acting perfectly legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatalieSheff Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 people who rubber neck really hack me off-why would you want ot look at blood and guts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts