commentaries

I'm quite convinced that I wouldn't have had the presence of mine this photographer displayed in flashing his camera in an attempt (successful to a point, as it happens) to attract the driver's attention. In the end, what happened - happened. It is tragic, and perhaps even more so for the photographer who not only must live with a horrific image burned into his memory, but with the scorn of a bunch of people who weren't there. He is in my thoughts.

Is this really any different from videos that we see on Americas Funniest Videos or other such shows. I am always amazed that the person taking the pictures seems to keep shooting despite the fact many times the subject is in serious danger of crippling injuries or death. Yet we keep watching. Perhaps we're the problem.

The Post bears the responsibility for publishing the picture. This is a direct consequence of being owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch's NEW Corporation, which also owns Fox News. Bringing the photographer into it is a typical Murdoch ploy to try to deflect blame for his despicable policies.

I would like to know how many were on the platform at that time, and how much time passed from the time he fell on the tracks to when the train passed. Some of us are excellent under pressure and would have made heroic attempts to get the man out. Others freeze up in the same situation, too frightened to do anything. I hope there was no time for anyone to do anything.

He took the picture-- He did NOT have to sell it. Regardless if he could have helped the man on the tracks, he made the conscious decision to cash in on the tragedy. There's no misdirected anger, just spread it equally at the Post and this ethical humanitarian just trying to earn a buck.

Before I buy his story about taking photographs just so his flash would go off and alert the train driver, I'd like to see those photos. Seems a convenient afterthought and my guess is that they're not the random shots he claims.

Is cashing in on someone's else misfortune so new? How about those nauseating "child fund" commercials one sees at about this time every year? All those starving and sick kids hanging around while the moderator earnestly pleads with us to "save them by contributing (so many) dollars a month". Does the moderator and camera crew provide the kids with food and medicine after the commercial is finished shooting? Or do they merely pull up stakes and move on to the next ghetto? Let's face it. Both are cashing in on another's misfortune.

HIs photographs were given to the police. Did they release the photos then?