This story continues to outrage as it goes global - here are few corrections as it comes into better focus:
1. He was on the tracks from 24-90 seconds before the train hit him (witness accounts vary)
2. The photographer has backtracked from his first story (excuse), now he says the panhandler was running at him and he was scared (witness accounts
do not verify this and instead say the two men argued as many people moved farther away from them)
3. Witnesses describe confusion, cowardliness, mostly elderly folks and tourists on the platform at the time
4. He was a father to one (not two); he was unemployed and possibly drunk (according to his wife and a bottle of vodka was found on his person).
5. A suspect has been captured (the panhandler)
**Again, facts change all the time but as of today that's where we stand - I'm beginning to really hate this story even more.
reply to post by MrInquisitive
I agree with you, Murdoch & Ailes need to stop with the doom porn; this TMZ-like sensationalist news entertainment poisons most of their media
properties (with exception of the WSJ, nothing yet) - collectively these two people have made us all dumber and desensitized to tragedy. Importantly
people need to wise up and not read or watch their produced material - show them door by not paying.
reply to post by kobalt7
By all means give people the option to learn the truth - but *WARN* them of graphic content beforehand. The NY Post enjoys prime real estate on the
lower shelves of NY bodegas and newsstands - next to the NY Times, The WSJ (another Murdoch property), The NY Daily News, and local papers. In the
plain-site of kids, people who really don't want to see this garbage, and the impressionable. Put The Post where the porno mags live, on the back
shelf barely in site.
reply to post by ~widowmaker~
There is clear different to what you describe with the exception of showing Bin Laden's dead face on the cover; that difference is in war, bloodied
bodies are not easily identifiable, cover stories rarely run with a dead body but usually people in a war scene, still alive. This particular image,
of a man, alone, in the busiest city in the world, about to die, screams to the viewer WHY ISN'T HE BEING HELPED
(especially guilty is the
Those drone and helicopter attacks that land on the MSM tend to be filmed from further away and always appear less gruesome, but people know.
Agree. Morals and principals went out the window long ago - but we can actually blame someone this time. Murdoch and Ailes for allowing this photo to
be negotiated on, purchased, and used to make money for them - they're the vultures, the greedy dirtbags profiting off human tragedy. (I feel
confident the executive editor & photo editor of the NY Post didn't go solo on making the call to publish this pic).
Back to Bin Laden - that public excepted his bloated, dead face on the cover of The Post for several reasons - New Yorker's hate him, they wanted him
dead for 9/11. Proof was needed to show he was dead. It was not gruesome per say (as in bloodied) but appeared with copy to demonstrate it was photo
used for evidence to a cheering NY. Almost like "crime solved).
I'd implore anyone who is interested in clear analysis of what happened, why this photo sparks outrage, why in NY it's scarier than most places, and
why we're all screwed into having to this new reality foisted on to us -- read this NY Times story:
Remember folks if you don't like what you see - then don't spend you money on it. Full stop.
edit on 5-12-2012 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)