Almost every morning while Bostonist waits in line at a Somerville Dunkin Donuts there's a good 20 seconds to scan the cover page of the Boston Herald to see what's going on - scorching hot day out? Bikini-clad beachgoer! "Oh it's just 'the Herald' being 'the Herald', right?" How many times has Bostonist seen the Herald's cover page, and chuckled at the latest in sensationalist Bostonian tabloid fare? It's as sure as the sun rising from the east.
This morning though, anyone spotting the front page of the paper, or the website, would notice a prominently displayed article detailing how a Herald photographer spotted three guys shooting up some smack in the middle of Boston's Public Garden, in broad daylight, and took some time to snap some photos. A photo gallery exists on the site in case readers would like a view of the drama unfolding.
Now, when facing such terribly sad and shocking sight, the normal person is faced with a couple of choices:
A) Freak the HELL out and take off.
B) Call or seek out some sort of authorities, immediately.
C) Sit back, cold-chillin', and take some photos knowing very well any one of them could die.
Most people would probably go with "A". Seeing as something like 3 people shooting up in a park is a bit shocking and overwhelming, it's understandable. The proactive and brave ones might go with B, and let their civic responsibilities call them into action. Bostonist, for one, can't fathom going for the final option. This, of course, could lead to discussions on journalistic philosophies, integrity and ethics. Journalists, in some peoples' eyes, have no business interfering. It is their job, to chronicle what's going on "out there". To clarify, the photographer did tell someone after snapping the photos. They hung around and took more photos when "Junkie A" overdosed. Again, that is their job, but ultimately is it right for the Herald to post a series of photos detailing this man OD'ing?
Bostonist wonders what the court of public opinion thinks. Is this another example of the status quo? Or are others similarly taken aback? Is Bostonist being too reactionary?
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
The photographer's conduct doesn't bother me. Heck, you can walk through the Common most evenings and see the same thing. Does every person who witnesses someone shooting up have an obligation to intervene on the off chance the junkie will die right there? As for the Herald, it doesn't shock me that they would choose to run those photos -- it is what their readers apparently want from that awful rag.
the dude probably would have died horribly one way or another. i feel bad for his family if this is the way they have to find out about his death.
After thinking about it for a while I really can't fault the photographer for anything they did. The Herald is out there to shock and tittilate and all that crap ... so I shouldn't be surprised. I think it's the combination of all the factors at play that sort of worked up my ire. Between the fact that this was actually happening, a photog. snapping away at what's going on, and the herald posting an entire "photo gallery" exploiting what happened ... it sort of made me sick.
the result, to me, was greater than the sum of its parts.
also there is nothing as fun or easy as judging whether someone acted correctly or not while safely tapping away on a keyboard far from the action at hand .