It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by msnevil
Why didn't the photographer "Run and get help"? Even a lay person knows how to do that. The UN Relief zone would have trained personnel that could deal with the "infectious diseases.".
Originally posted by Ex
Could someone give me a hand ?I can't find the photo
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Wait just a goddamned minute.
The job of a journalist is to document events, not muck about with them. Journalists in warzones aren't there to help the wounded (that job falls to the medics) - the journalists are there to document the suffering and the horror - to make the rest of us understand. The same goes for journalists documenting famines and plagues.
If the journalist does his job, he raises awareness and that means a hell of a lot more in the long run.
If the journalists of the world spent all their time picking up babies and delivering food and helping the wounded and so on, we wouldn't have any of their amazing photographs to help us understand our world.
Remember the quintessential Vietnam photos? There are two of them that define that war. The accused VC spy about to be executed by pistol shot to the head, and the little girl fleeing her napalmed village.
If the journalists who took those shots had instead chosen to forsake their duty, we would probably still be in that damn war! Sure, the photographer could have dropped his camera and wrapped a blanket around the poor, suffering girl. He could have done that, and felt good about himself. Instead he forced the bile down and took the shot, and ended the damn war in addition to receiving a pullitzer AND helping the little girl (after he took the shot).
Read this. news.bbc.co.uk...
I'm just amazed that people have such a hard time thinking of the long game.
If some scumbag capitalizes on suffering, I'll spit on him with the rest of you. Waiting twenty minutes for the right shot? That's a bit much. Doing it for the fame or the money? Downright despicable. But at the core is a very noble ideal, that takes a lot of intestinal fortitude to uphold.
Photographers have real power to change the world, to crystalize our common understanding of events and germinate powerful surges in public sentiment.
They have to do what they do; they have to take the picture to do their duty. Nick could have forsaken that shot to get the girl some water five seconds sooner, but he didn't. He did his duty.
I, for one, am grateful for photographers who hover in the midst of tragedy without doing much of anything immediate to help the victims. They do their part to ease suffering as surely as any medic, it just takes a bit longer to pay off, that's all.
Originally posted by frozen_snowman
This picture won the Pulitzer Prize?
So someone out there must find it cool.
I admit I don't know how the voting works for winning that price but it shows the