Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Very sad ...........

Shakey said:
The one with the vulture is a real phot, I saw it some years ago in the Sunday Times or summat.

And yes the photographer did walk away.

Question is, if the child was infected with summat would you risk picking up the infection and becoming a casualty yourself? :???:

seriously??
 
wet_blobby said:
Shakey said:
The one with the vulture is a real phot, I saw it some years ago in the Sunday Times or summat.

And yes the photographer did walk away.

Question is, if the child was infected with summat would you risk picking up the infection and becoming a casualty yourself? :???:

seriously??
yes i would to save a child i would ....
 
Yes, seriously.

If the photographer has had the fear of God put into them by being told the refugees might have Ebola or summat mental like that then would you seriously expect anyone to approach them without wearing a full-on noddy suit?

And if the child did have some life threatening disease in some shit hole refugee camp in Africa then you're not going to save them, they are already the walking dead. This is what we call triage.

That photograph is probably the most powerful image taken in recent times and raises very interesting questions concerning morality.

What would I do? Dunno, 'cos I don't know the full story behind the image. If the photographer had been told 'Don't go near dying refugees 'cos they have very bad lurgy and you'll catch it and die' then that's one story. If he had been told 'Don't go near refugees 'cos they've got athlete's foot' then that's another.
 
Photojournalists are taught to maintain a kind of hypocratic oath, similar to that of a doctor, in maintaining impartiality - they are not to become involved with the story, save anyone accuse them of influencing the story they are reporting on. They are the reflector, not the director. Remember the stories of journos strategically placing teddy bears in the rubble and wreckage after Lockerbie and the Clapham rail crash?

What of the photographs of Iraqis being tortured; should the person taking the photos also have intervened? Aren't they responsible for what happened, by recording the incidents rather than stopping them?

Bringing these images to the public domain is to raise awareness of the bigger picture. The images of the burning Vietnamese girl; the Auschwitz survivors being liberated; and the vulture watching the Sudanese baby; all horrific events, but the images brought awareness to what caused these atrocities. The loss of her life may have saved the lives of millions through famine relief brought on by Carter's photo and subsequent report.

Kevin Carter's story is a unique but sad one nonetheless, and I bet most people here would have a similar moral dilemma if in a similar situation. All those who are medically trained will know that you must look after yourself first, regardless of the consequences, as you might become injured too. A simplistic POV I agree, but he maintained the ethos of photojournalism - and he paid the ultimate price for his actions, despite the plaudits he received as a result.
 
"paid the ultimate price for his actions"

Having a blonde moment here, did his catch something and die or was he outcast for not helping the child?
 
I think taking your own life due to an internal moral dilemma is pretty ultimate!

Carter said that he waited about 20 minutes to take the photograph, hoping that the vulture would spread its wings. It didn't. Carter snapped the haunting photograph and chased the vulture away. However, he also came under heavy criticism for just photographing — and not helping — the girl:
"The man adjusting his lens to take just the right frame of her suffering might just as well be a predator, another vulture on the scene."

The photograph was sold to The New York Times where it appeared for the first time on 26 March 1993. Practically overnight hundreds of people contacted the newspaper to ask whether the child had survived, leading the newspaper to run a special editor's note saying the girl had enough strength to walk away from the vulture, but that her ultimate fate was unknown. On 2 April 1994 Nancy Buirski, a foreign New York Times picture editor, phoned Carter to inform him he had won the most coveted prize for photography. Carter was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography on 23 May 1994 at Columbia University's Low Memorial Library.

He later confided to friends that he wished he had intervened and helped the child. Journalists at the time were supposedly warned never to touch famine victims for fear of disease. This criticism and the death of a close friend, Ken Oosterbroek, who was accidentally shot and killed in Tokoza on 18 April 18, 1994 while covering township violence, may have contributed to Carter's tragic suicide. On 27 July 1994 Carter drove to the Braamfonteinspruit river, near the Field and Study Center, an area he used to play at as a child, and took his own life by taping one end of a hose to his pickup truck’s exhaust pipe and running the other end to the passenger-side window. He died of carbon monoxide poisoning at the age of 33. The last person to see Carter alive was Oosterbroek's widow, Monica. Portions of Carter's suicide note read:

"I am depressed ... without phone ... money for rent ... money for child support ... money for debts ... money!!! ... I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings & corpses & anger & pain ... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners...I have gone to join Ken if I am that lucky."
 
Theres not much you can say is there , somebody has to take the photos at the end of the day otherwise we would be obliveous of what go'es on & it would no doubt be a whole lot worse , sad but true , despair at times ,
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top