By Sara Ward
Copy Editor
It’s disappointing when journalists feel the need to plaster someone’s tragedy all over for a news story.
The New York Post insensitively chose to run a front-page photo of a man about to be struck by a subway train, according to a Dec. 4 USA Today article.
While it’s true this story is newsworthy, the deceased man’s last moment should not have been caught on camera and published in a major newspaper. Of course there are good reasons why a story like this should have been published, but a photo should not have accompanied it.
The photo, featuring Queens resident Ki-Suck Han seconds before he was fatally struck, featured the headline “DOOMED” written underneath, according to the same article.
According to R. Umar Abbasi, a Post freelance photographer who took the picture, he originally used the camera’s flash to warn the subway train driver to stop.
It’s hard to believe he was only taking the picture to warn the driver to stop, but even if he was, the picture should not have been sold to New York Post editors to be used in the issue.
It’s enough just to read a tragic story like this. Why would I want to see a man, seconds from death, staring at an oncoming subway train, as he stands helpless on the tracks? To make matters worse, the Post emphasized the tragedy by writing how doomed the man was underneath the picture.
The Post
has a history of pushing the envelope. Just after a nor’easter followed Hurricane Sandy, the newspaper ran a headline that stated “GOD HATES US,” according to the same article.
However, no matter how provocative a newspaper is trying to be, it is sick to use someone’s tragic story as a means of obtaining higher readership and more money. Even if it was appropriate to have such a shocking story on the front page, a picture of the event and an insensitive headline shouldn’t have been used.
There are ways of telling the news without hurting people. I feel like a photo of someone’s imminent death and a headline stating his or her doom is not necessary.
As Kelly McBride, Poynter Institute’s senior faculty member for ethics, said in the same article, the photo wasn’t “bearing witness to something people need to know about.” For her, there has to be a journalistic purpose behind a horrific photo. I agree.
It’s true this story needed to be told, but it’s also true the photo wasn’t needed for any sort of journalistic reason. The front-page photo of Han never should have been used because it was selfish and unnecessary.
Han, who was thrown onto the tracks by an attacker, was caught at the wrong place at the wrong time. He and his family should not be doubly punished by the thoughtlessness of a news organization.
