final exam extra credit

1. Explain what happened to the man that was killed by the subway and how the photographer was able to take the photo. 
The man in the picture was pushed by a panhandler into the tracks after he tried to calm down the panhandler, as he was harassing a passerby. 

2. Why did the photographer say he took the photo?
The photographer said he was actually just using his flash to try to grab the conductors attention, to get him to stop the subway, not necessarily trying to take a picture.

3. Do you think the photographer should have taken the photo?
I'm going to say no. I don't know how far he was from the man but based on the photo it looks like he could have been saved. I think if the photographer was not trying to grab the attention of the conductor and was instead trying to save the man, his life could have been saved. Not necessarily for the ethics of the photo but ethics of life. If this was the photographer's response and he was too far to grab the man and yell for someone closer to help, then it's fine. It looks like he's close enough to truly pull him.

4. Do you think the photographer did the best thing he could have done in this situation? Why or why not?
I think if the photographer was not trying to grab the attention of the conductor and was instead trying to save the man, his life could have been saved. I'd say no. He could have yelled for help or tried to run fast to get to him. It doesn't look like there's much movement from him in the photo.

5. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to run the photo on the front page of the New York Post? Explain why or why not.
I'd say no. It's a picture that leads to something very gruesome and our imaginations get the best of us, having this on the front page leads to a bad taste. I think it could be okay in the inner pages of the paper but on the front is a lack of respect for everyone, especially the man who died and his family, he's not just a picture. 

6. What is more important to a photojournalist, capturing images of life as it happens or stopping bad things from happening? Why or why not?
Capturing images of life happening. Journalist are invested in capturing stories not stopping them. It's not usually right for morality purposes, if you can do something.

7. Do you think it is ever ethically acceptable for a photographer to involve himself/herself in a situation that he or she photographs? Explain why or why not.
Yes. We're all allowed to have our own opinions so if you believe you are doing the best thing by getting involved, okay. If you involve yourself in a story and you are good at capturing the story, then involve yourself so you can explain it to others. It's a photographer's decision though. 

8. Should photojournalists always avoid influencing events as they happen? Explain your answer. 
Depending on ethics. If it's better for you to change the story because of ethics, do so. I don't think photojournalists should be afraid. If you see someone being held over a bridge and you're close to capture pictures but for the sake of a greater good, if you can intervene then do so. If you need to punch someone in the face to protect someone else, like the person who was dangling over a bridge, change the story. Life is not all a story, there is right and wrong. 

9. After reading the responses from the professional photographers, what stands out as the most appropriate response for a photographer to this situation.
Not to photograph pictures that lead to doom as most do not agree with it.