What the hell is wrong with the NY Post?

In cases like this i would agree.....but.......I'm sure if they showed the horrors of war that wouldn't be too popular either.
The fragile American eyes cant handle reality. I say show people the truth always, if its too much don't look.
if they showed the mangled body do you think you would be more careful around a subway train? Censorship has its place and altho it may be in bad taste sometimes i think lessons are lost either way.

reply to post by kobalt7


Perhaps this is what television has done to people. Everyone seems to have their own reality on television show maybe that's what life is to a lot of people out there. One big reality show.

reply to post by Jason88


Whoa... on planet brain'dead-- how'd I miss this?
Seems every paper has turned to tabloid trash to sell papers... and their excuse is???

I think this is sick, I don't think this sets a good precedent at all. A lot of social change is good, but not this.

I really dont see where the rant is comming from. have you not seen 24/7 coverage of people jumping out of 9/11 buildings. have you not seen the 24/7 coverage of every freakin war we have been in for past 15-20 years? have you not watched the drone attacks and black hawk copter attacks? have you not seen cover story after cover story of blood soaked clothes and streets after a police crime scene? have you not seen the screen littered with bodies after the next great mass shooting?

HAVE YOU FREAKIN WONDERED WHY ALL THIS HAS BEEN PUBLISHED, and yet when it came to bin ladin, it was to gruesome for us to see. (let alone no trial, so much for democracy)

among a long list of too gruesome for you to see, but wtf is this on tv for then list.

morals and principles went out the window a long freakin time ago. its always about sensationalism, and now that all the stops have been taken out, they just try and top the next rag to grab the prosac generations attention.


on another note, it has always drove me crazy why there are not poles going along the sides of the areas you can um fall in? lol what a dumb system.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

This is snuff pornography, which has no redeeming social value and solely caters to the prurient interests;therefore, it loses its First-Amendment rights.

Agreed.

This is not protected speech or political speech. It's just pornographic sensationalism, which has no protection under the Constitution.

There is text accompanying the photo. That's the loophole. You and I both know their legal department went over all that with a fine tooth comb before publication.

"The flash was used as a signal for the train operator"

"The text serves as a warning for people not to get too close to the edge unless boarding the train"

They may be sleazeballs but they know how to get technical so as to cover their a**. The thing is, what they did was wrong so they can get as technical as they want. What's needed is someone who can get JUST as technical, if not more so, for the sake of what's right. Having influence helps too.

The most effective things to do are:

a) Stop buying the publication

b) Inundate their site with disapproving messages.

c) Inundate the Port Authority with demands for automated guardrails. They stay up when no train is on the platform, and when the train reaches a certain point, it triggers a switch for the rails to go down. There are switches at different points along the tracks that trigger sections of the rails to go down. We have guardrails up on remote mountain passes here in the U.S. to save maybe 12 deaths per year, but they can't put up guardrails in the subway system to save upwards of 136 people per year? In this highly technical day and age? The Port Authority is no better than The Post in this regard in that they're putting profit over human life.

If I were the family of that man I'd start suing everyone who breathes, starting with the photographer. State defamation of character as the basis and go from there. If there's a legal precedent for the protection of such "journalism" then there surely is some sort of legal precedent to protect the personal and professional dignity and character of the people involved. Tit for tat. If there isn't, I'm sure there are a lot of lawyers in NYC who would love to get publicity and promotions for setting such a precedent. The time to start such a suit would be now while there is still a public uproar about it.

People in China are talking about this for pete's sake. Contact

to all who condemn the photographer, read his words.
blame the paper not the man. his actions more than likely will help to convict the person who pushed the man.

At the same time, the perp was running toward me. I was afraid he might push me onto the tracks.

When it was over, I didn’t look at the pictures. I didn’t even know at all that I had even captured the images in such detail. I didn’t look at them. I didn’t want to. It was just too emotional a day. I brought the camera memory card back to the office and turned it in. Two detectives came and looked at the photos and I just sat in a chair. When I finally looked at them late that night, my heart started racing. It was terrible, seeing it happen all over again.

Anguished fotog: Critics are unfair to condemn me


as you can see the police came and looked at the pictures and spoke to him.
and what about the people closer to him that didn't try to help or started taking video with their phones. what about those folks

also there is a interview on the today show with the photographer at the bottom.
.

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 photographer).

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: mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com...

Remember folks if you don't like what you see - then don't spend you money on it. Full stop.

reply to post by Jason88



I do have to agree with that, a warning should be mandatory, and I think content should have far more integrity, but that cover isn't shocking its just in very poor taste, so relocating it to the porn section is overboard, but this case aside, censorship has obviously bred generations that cant truly grasp the actions of their own leaders, as well as the ability to cope with a world that is far more unforgiving then TV portrays. From a political/cultural standpoint I think its far too easy to glaze over horrible # to avoid public outcry. Sometimes people NEED to be shocked into action, and at this point its only allowed when it serves an agenda. People survived for the better part of existence without it so i think people defend its use because they refuse to face reality rather then an issue of morality.

I do not blame the photographer for not acting. I don't believe his excuses, either one, but I don't blame him. Photographers have a different mindset. One that tells them not to interfere. Get the story, whatever that may be , as if they aren't there. I personally couldn't do it but thats the way they are trained and something they believe in deeply.

The other people there should be very ashamed of themselves as I'm sure most are.

Strict

The NY Post is total garbage. Has been for a long time. It's where Murdoch and Ailes go to plant their BS rumors so that their supposedly more respectable "news" outlets (read: Fox "news") can then repeat the rumor as news with a source.

This latest example of sleaze from them doesn't surprise me. Murdoch and his NY Post rag can rot in hell.

I'd just like to ask everyone a question.... In the OP the picture is small and you can't really 'see' what exactly is in it. So my question is, How many of you wished the picture was larger so you could see it better or wanted a link to a larger photo?

This is was dismal and disheartening day for humanity. We have grown so little. We’ve still so far to go.

reply to post by Jason88


I doubt the camera man could of done a thing. Looking at the photo, it looks like he was too far away to help. It wasn't like the guy fell onto the tracks and people sat around with their thumbs up their backsides. The guy was thrown onto the tracks as the train was coming in. Literally happened in a matter of seconds.. Now what the Post chose to do with running it as a front page and the tastelessness of it is another matter.

reply to post by NoJoker13


Out of respect for the dead and disgust, I didn't post the full picture.

But if you must see it:

Here: lmgtfy.com...

Then click "images"

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


That old trick, source yourself (or POV) from another outlet and hope those who don't pay attention think story number 1 is gaining traction because outlet number 2 is "trustworthy." Thanks for calling attention to that shady move - Page 6 on The Post trashes people often, then FOX News runs it as well.

reply to post by korathin


As we've had some time now to digest this story and more facts have come to light, I tend to agree with you today. The photographer has a job to do, he is trained to act with his camera, he also says "he licensed the NY Post his photo, what they do with it I have no control over after that." In a way I believe his job interfered with his human response. But, it's also become clear others were closer to the victim and could have more easily helped.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Jason88

 

*snip*

You may be right. And I think its fair if one is to judge the photo, the photographer, and the newspaper - it may be good to know what they're judging. This being a public forum, and myself sensitive to other people's views, decided it was better to let people search it out.

*snip*







Mod Note: Post On Topic – Please Review This Link.