Pulitzer Prize Winning Photo That Haunts Me

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
xeroxed88,

I don't really believe it is a matter of money that is lacking in these cases.

I think it is a lack of political will, and in fact, significant political opposition both internally and externally in thes countries that is causing disasters like these famines, and genecides such as in Rawanda.

What we must do is put political pressure (through collective grass root action) on the dictators of Africa, and the despots of Russia and America, until they no longer block the world's efforts to bring relief and aid to the third world.

Certainly sponser a child or too, but make sure to join up and donate your time with groups such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and other Non Profits to help educate people and turn the heat up on these greedy, self serving politicians.

Well, the more voices we have, the bigger the chance of achievement. Live8 was absolutely huge, it caused alot of world leaders to do something for about a month, now what are they doing? Sitting on their arses planning their next invasion? Why don't our leaders do something right for once and actually liberate the African nations etc.?

I'm only 17 and yet I see 40+ year olds who have no idea of how messed up our world is... I just, as I'm sure most, if not all of you, wish there was a way to sort this mess out - with the help our "leaders", instead of them just smiling at a camera and saying, "we will help", for a month and end up doing jack-all.

End of rant. Take care everyone.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by xeroxed88]

[edit on 21-10-2005 by xeroxed88]

This picture will haunt me the same way as it does the original poster.

How the hell does any normal human being wait for 20 minutes to capture an image that will make him a lot of money, when the image he is trying to take, ultimately shows the death of an infant?

Why did he not try and save the child? Would that have been against the 'media picture etiquette?'

The fact the he watched the child die instead of helping her, is sick, nothing more, just plain and simple sick.

The fact that he committed suicide because of this, is of no importance to me. He should have had his morals when he took the picture, not after.

If it was me, then that child would have been in my arms, and taken to somewhere she could have got some kind of treatment, regardless of what i could have caught from her. Then again, i am just a single parent (yes i am a male single parent) who has more morals than a low life photographer who thinks nothing more of gaining a few pounds/dollars for just one image of a child fighting for her life.

If i had met this photographer, then God knows what i would have done or said to him. The fact that he has taken his own life because of his guilt regarding this, shows how low he had become. And he knew it too.

My mercy and thoughts lie with the child ,and not the photographer..............

Originally posted by Dulcimer
What about this photo (of an unrelated nature)




Famous photos of this nature tend to have a similarity dont you think.

But I guess the man in this photo was "bad".

Yes, these photos are similar in the sense that thy both show the darker sides of humanity. These two photographers have nothing in common though, when it comes to situations. This Vietcong soldier was executed by a frustrated/sadistic Vietnamese officer and it is claimed that the photographer, Eddie Adams, who took those images had no idea that the man would be shot. He assumed that he would just be interrogated and coerced by the use of a pistol to his temple. Plus, if he would have tried to stop them two lives might have been lost that day. Kevin Carter on the other hand, hid behind his camera and waited for the perfect opportunity to take his shot. He ignored the suffering of this child for the sake of a great photo. This was in my opinion inhumane and showed horrible judgment on Carters part.

I was rereading my earlier post in this thread and realized I sounded somewhat harsh. I did not mean to offend anyone here. However, I have not changed my opinion. It is all too easy to say what we could have done were we someone else, but in the end it all amounts to judgements we have no basis upon which to make.

-koji K.

That picture is very haunting. I think it also puts into perspective something that is happening in third world countries at this very moment. I think that if more "shocking" pictures like this were shown it would influence people with more social status to help people like this... but also, it would normalize everyone to a point where they would no longer look at something liek that with much emotion. so.... just thinking up some ideas. thats a very depressing picture.

Originally posted by skychief

Originally posted by Dulcimer
What about this photo (of an unrelated nature)




Famous photos of this nature tend to have a similarity dont you think.

But I guess the man in this photo was "bad".

This Vietcong soldier was executed by a frustrated/sadistic Vietnamese officer and it is claimed that the photographer, Eddie Adams, who took those images had no idea that the man would be shot. He assumed that he would just be interrogated and coerced by the use of a pistol to his temple. Plus, if he would have tried to stop them two lives might have been lost that day.

Wrong.

Regardless of what the photographer thought, the man in the picture was out of uniform, behind enemy lines and had just taken part in the brutal killing of non-combatants (that last part is from hazy memory). The first two bring a sentence of sumary execution under the rules of war.

After the Battle of the Bulge, Otto Skorzeny's men were executed by firing squad, despite being prisoners of war.

Originally posted by shadow watcher
You have voted msnevil for the Way Above Top Secret award.

As a parent, I could not turn away from a dying child.
As a caregiver, I could try to do something.
As a human, I couldn't allow that child die alone.

Good, because as a father I don't think I could either. But after a briefing involving the word "disease" in Africa, I might do no more than sit by her side until she breathed her last. My son comes before all others and I'm no good to him dead from a disease I know nothing about.

Personally, I think a better picture would have been the photographer hugging the child while she gets medicine and food. (if it were there)

And how many newspapers world-wide are going to run that picture? How many people are going to donate money or tinned food or blankets? How many politicians are going to give a $hit because they've been inundated with calls from constituents who saw the picture?

To all those condemning the photographer based on their own morality, I say again, "You weren't there, you wouldn't have a clue." It must be nice to be a caregiver in the first world, with first world medicine immediately available to you if something should go wrong and a comfortable bed at home to go sleep in when you clock off.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Wrong.

Regardless of what the photographer thought, the man in the picture was out of uniform, behind enemy lines and had just taken part in the brutal killing of non-combatants (that last part is from hazy memory). The first two bring a sentence of sumary execution under the rules of war.

After the Battle of the Bulge, Otto Skorzeny's men were executed by firing squad, despite being prisoners of war.

I guess I shouldn't have used the word sadistic in describing the officer who executed that vietcong soldier he was, essentially, just doing his job. I was trying to point out though, that these were two entirely different scenarios and that there was a big difference between the two photographers.

Good, because as a father I don't think I could either. But after a briefing involving the word "disease" in Africa, I might do no more than sit by her side until she breathed her last. My son comes before all others and I'm no good to him dead from a disease I know nothing about. -quote.

In my profession. I am exposed to disease everyday.

Who knows when the next needle stick might give me "hepatitis", For exp.

Even with years of health care Training and universal precautions. There is risks that go with the job.

And I as a parent. I Expose myself every day to deadly diseases. Yet my kids come first in my life. As well.

Why didn't the photographer "Run and get help"? Even a lay person knows how to do that. The UN Relief zone would have trained personnel that could deal with the "infectious diseases.".

""To all those condemning the photographer based on their own morality, I say again, "You weren't there, you wouldn't have a clue." It must be nice to be a caregiver in the first world, with first world medicine immediately available to you if something should go wrong and a comfortable bed at home to go sleep in when you clock off. """-quote.

So many assumption in the above paragraph. With little evidence to support these assumptions.

1)I can't Speak for Others. But my Morality Is Based What I Have Been taught in the medical profession. My peers, Not me. Decide what is Right, and not.

Do you realize that as a Trained Healthcare representative. That if I walked away from the Child. Then I will have my License revoked, As well as be persecuted under Negligence.

If You witness a child in danger, And you leave him\her in Danger. Then you will Be accused of Negligence. As well. And Be in "trouble with the law". (Also please note, Good Samaritan laws help protect you From liability. When in such a situation.)

2)I Have been in those type of Role scenarios. Mostly with the elderly, But also with younger people as well. Have You ever seen Children "Starve" while the Adults smoke "dope". Or perhaps seen Babies thrown in dumpsters? etc. I have seen many things in my lifetime. Many which I wish, I never partook of.
But I did what was needed to be done.

3)How dare you accuse me\other Caregivers of living a "Nice Cozy life." I have risked my life trying to save others. Many times without adequate shelter, medicine or other such niceties. You accuse us of. Have you even been a disaster area. Deciding who lives or who dies. Working many hours without pay. And Unable to go "home" to my nice cozy home.

(Granted, I at least have a home, And am grateful to those. Who gave their life. So that I and others can have “cozy homes” as well. )

Tonight I witnessed two People Give up on life. Yes, we could "save" them. But I can not go against their Will. They will Die, And I can only Set back. And watch them die.

This Girl wasn't Given a chance. She never "refused" care. She was seeking Care. And the Guy Cared More for his precious picture. Then "life" itself. That is what is wrong with this picture. (note: the slaying of enemy combatants is another scenario in itself. And the picture is an exp. Of media biase for the story over Rightful actions.)

"""""""

Side note- Thanks I guess, to the person who nominated me for the way above top secret award. I have no idea, What that means. But I thank you anyway.

A second thought I have had on this subject after some reflection. The photojournalist may have succeeded in helping this child - but one thing or another would have made this intention futile. Local government interference, a crushingly overwhelmed medical staff which likely was quite distant, and lack of resources. As a medic, I've practiced triage - some must die so that others who are more likely to live can be treated.

Given those circumstances, perhaps the photog made the best choice he could. Waiting for the most dramatic and controversial picture he could find could - a certainly did - provoke a visceral reponse of shock, sorrow, anguish, and outrage. If you can't save one, try to make the death count for something.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we must remember that there are hundreds if not thousands of deaths for these and similiar reasons throughout the undeveloped world - some of you are going to HATE me for using the WHO as a reference, but here are 2004 estimated numbers ....

www.who.int...


Another source - again UNICEF (not many organizations bother to track this suffering, more's the pity) www.unicefusa.org...

I quote
"Child mortality rates vary considerably among regions and countries, but the most disturbing findings are those countries whose annual rate of progress has been negative; in other words, they are heading in reverse, with rising child mortality rates. In several countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Commonwealth of Independent States, children are less likely to make it to their fifth birthdays than they were in 1990."

"Root causes
Inadequate birthing conditions — meaning little or no health care for mothers, and the lack of skilled attendants during deliveries — cause the largest proportion of preventable deaths. Infectious and parasitic diseases, such as measles and malaria are the next biggest killers.

Malnutrition, unsafe water and poor sanitation are contributing factors behind more than half of all child deaths. Acute respiratory infections and diarrhea are at the root of roughly one-third of child deaths.

"The world has the tools to improve child survival, if only it would use them," Bellamy said. "Vaccines, micronutrient supplements and insecticide-treated mosquito nets don't cost much, and would save millions of children. But not enough children are being reached with these basic life-savers. That's what has to change. No government should be allowed to let another ten years pass with so little progress for children. Leaders have agreed to goals and they must be held accountable." "

He very well might have been shooting for a Pulitzer. I pray that he was trying to make that child's suffering a clarion call for action. If that was the case, than - to the shame of us all - we are still ignoring the cry of the hungery and the suffering.

A final consideration; we don't even have to look across the globe to find suffering. In many of our hometowns, the homeless and hungry quietly lurk in the shadows. I ask all who read this to clean out their closets for old winter clothing and donate it to a church or civic group. When you go shopping, buy a few extra items of basic non-perishable foods (canned food, rice, etc) and drop it off at a food pantry or shelter. If we all gave a little, this would make a huge dent in this crisis.

Thanks for reading this latest epistle.

Thankyou, Shantyman.

msnevil, "so many assumptions...". No, only those based on reading the posts of others talking about watching people die.

I'm glad you put your kids first, you also have years of training in your chosen profession/calling and immense resources backing you up if things go wrong. You understand such things as sharps and blood control and have been trained in them, you probably also have masks and such specialised equipment supplied to you as part of your working day if the situation requires it. You are trained to recognise and manage your risks, I would suggest you are regularly informed of potential new risks and given access to detailed information. Clearly the photographer did not and was not.

I'm not a health care professional, that's my mother, but my assessment of that child based only on the picture is that she's way too far gone for help.

I've watched people die on the road. I've watched people die on the side of the road as help was on its way, I've watched people die on the side of the road after help arrived.

I've lived in a country that could be described as a "disaster zone", where people have starved to death due to poverty. I've even lived in an area of my own country that could be described as a "disaster zone", where most health problems are the result of diet.

Not all of my life has been spent in Australia, enjoying the comforts of The Lucky Country. Perhaps you should go back and reread my earlier posts.

Negligence only exists in countries where the law states a duty of care.

In Australia it's commonly called "failure to render assistance".

Somalia, like most of the 3rd world, is not one of those countries. Negligence is a luxury the rich can afford.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
(...)

To all those condemning the photographer based on their own morality, I say again, "You weren't there, you wouldn't have a clue." It must be nice to be a caregiver in the first world, with first world medicine immediately available to you if something should go wrong and a comfortable bed at home to go sleep in when you clock off.

The major fact that confirms that he made the wrong decision was is suicide. If he, at least, tried to save the children, two lives would be saved: the child and his life. Now, he's dead, the child is dead and a 7 year old child will grow without a father.
[irony_mode on] But hey, at least he got a pullitzer prize, even if it was at a child death's expense it's a pullitzer anyway. [irony_mode off]

Since i saw this picture, i've put it on my desktop as a wallpaper. It's a reminder to me that i'm fortunate because of two things: i am not that child and i'm not that photographed.

One day as a man was walking along the shore he looked down the beach and saw a human figure moving like a dancer. He smiled to himself to think of someone who would dance to the day, so he began to walk faster to catch up. As he got closer, he saw that it was a young man and the young man wasn't dancing, but instead, he was reaching down to the shore, picking up something and very gently throwing it into the ocean.

As he got closer he called out, 'Good morning! What are you doing?' The young man paused, looked up and replied, 'Throwing starfish into the ocean.'

'I guess I should have asked; why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?'

'The sun is up and the tide is going out and if I don't throw them in they'll die.'

'But young man, don't you realize that there are miles and miles of beach and starfish all along it, you can't possibly make a difference!'

The young man listened politely, then bent down, picked up another starfish and threw it into the sea, past the breaking waves. 'It made a difference for that one.'"

www.starthrower.com...

Just seeing this picture has literally changed me. Everybody who is around me at this exact moment I told to come and read this whole post. Literally 5 minutes of silence followed where we just did not say a word. Then we kind of just walked away quietly; How could a man see a kid in such pain and do nothing? Im sure this was a good man; But how does he not have the instinct to help this young child?

This picture will literally bring me to tears; just imagining the scenario of the man on one knee waiting for the best image possible while this young child crying out in help. You have to question mankind itself when you see something like this, everyone of us could do more, but when put face to face with this.. Id like to believe all of us would do all we could for humanity.

Originally posted by nothing_pt

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
(...)

To all those condemning the photographer based on their own morality, I say again, "You weren't there, you wouldn't have a clue." It must be nice to be a caregiver in the first world, with first world medicine immediately available to you if something should go wrong and a comfortable bed at home to go sleep in when you clock off.

The major fact that confirms that he made the wrong decision was is suicide. If he, at least, tried to save the children, two lives would be saved: the child and his life. Now, he's dead, the child is dead and a 7 year old child will grow without a father.
[irony_mode on] But hey, at least he got a pullitzer prize, even if it was at a child death's expense it's a pullitzer anyway. [irony_mode off]

Since i saw this picture, i've put it on my desktop as a wallpaper. It's a reminder to me that i'm fortunate because of two things: i am not that child and i'm not that photographed.

I've considered that myself, but I also postulate another interpetation. A person who does this kind of work finds that their soul becomes abraded. There's only so much one can take. If you think seeing the picture is bad - and it is - imagine seeing this everywhere you look for days, weeks, maybe months on end. I know several soldiers who have commited suicide. Not becasue they did horrible things, not because they stood by and watched such nightmarish suffering, but because the spiritual pain grows to be too much. People who have seen horror either find something to sooth their tattered souls, go insane, or end their lives to end the nightmares, to be free of the demons that haunt them every waking and sleeping moment.
Whatever his reasons for ending his life, we should feel compassion for someone who extinguished the greatest gift any of use are given...life.

I still maintain that he did the best he could. Even in this thread, this photo has raised so many posts that are revelations of a world most of us don't even know exists. Having personally seen starvation, I am sickened when I hear some round-faced, plump child whine that they are 'starving.' That proves how litte many of us know about starvation - we get hungry. Starvation is that poor child.

I pray for that child, the photog, and all the children - thousands and thousands of them - that are dying the same slow, agonizing death as you read this. Let that poor child be the clarion call for action; let us not allow all these deaths be in vain....

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Somalia, like most of the 3rd world, is not one of those countries. Negligence is a luxury the rich can afford.

Oops. That should say the Sudan. And hey, aren't they, like, experiencing drought and famine again, dude. Like, what's up with that? (not to mention civil war (on only one front now) and genocide in the UN's self-described "worst humanitarian crisis in the world").

Africa going through its cycle all over again. I never really took much notice until Live Aid. Then it seemed that we only heard about Africa when there was drought and famine and THAT seemed to be every bloody year. Why, a decade later (two if you go back to Live Aid) are we seeing the same headlines, the same statistics and the same images of exposed ribcages and pathetic, bony legs?

And why does it take Irish rock stars to make the world care?

For a really damning analysis of our lifestyles google "soggy lettuce report". I hope I remembered it right.

Originally posted by mrwupy
"He waited 20 minutes hoping the vulture would spread its wings..." This photo has given me a whole new perception on what pornography actually is.

Agreed. Not because of the picture alone, but because of his failure to do anything material afterward to help her.

Originally posted by koji_K
Thank god for photographers and journalists, or we wouldn't even know how bad it is.

Yes. No problem here.

Originally posted by koji_K
If I had a penny for every time someone asks,"why aren't those journalists helping those people" I'd be rich.

Journalists are there to get the story out, so people who have the power to act meaningfully can act. It is these people (read you and me) who deserve the blame.

What was this journalist supposed to do? Carry the child to food? What food? The food he presumably had left after giving everything he had on him to the last 20 starving people? Even if he had any left, what does he do next, when the rest of the starving village comes to get the child's food? Throw a rock at the vulture. Would this make you feel better? Would you have stood at the levee in New Orleans and tried to beat back the ocean with a stick?

This statement is so laden with assumptions, it falsely gives justification to the indisputable fact that a photographer waited 20 minutes to get a "better" shot and then simply walked away. If the guy, himself, later "confides in friends that he wished he had done more" and later took his own life because of his failure to do so, then I'm inclined to believe him- HE COULD HAVE DONE MORE...and didn't.

Originally posted by koji_K
We all sit and look at the photo and shake our heads, wishing we never saw it and could make it go away. Is it really the fact that someone took the photo that upsets us, or is it the fact that the photo was there to be taken?

The latter, coupled with his needless insensitivity that enabled him to simply walk away.

Originally posted by koji_K
You can't judge the photographer. Unless you were there with him, you have no right.

WRONG. To believe otherwise suggests that 'judgment' has no place in any assessment of human action. Decent judgment is precisely what this photographer lacked!

Originally posted by koji_K
People like that girl are starving RIGHT NOW, and instead of getting off our asses and giving, we log on to the internet and talk about our revulsion. If you want to blame someone, blame us.

-koji K.

I'll just assume this is what you apologized for later in this thread...



[edit on 28-10-2005 by loam]

No words to describe the emotions that this picture and story have brewed within me...

The only lessons to be learned are this:
TRY and do the right thing in any given instance. In a situation like that there is no looking ahead, no taking prudent calculations as to the ramifications or overall big picture.
TRY and go off instinct. Save that person right then and there. Live purely in the moment. Do not dare analyze the situation.
You may end up justifying the wrong decision. Even if it is the most rational decision.

Do the right thing, members of humanity.

Please.

Originally posted by loam

This statement is so laden with assumptions, it falsely gives justification to the indisputable fact that a photographer waited 20 minutes to get a "better" shot and then simply walked away. If the guy, himself, later "confides in friends that he wished he had done more" and later took his own life because of his failure to do so, then I'm inclined to believe him- HE COULD HAVE DONE MORE...and didn't.

Yes, I admit I made many assumptions, but only to present a different view. I think you also are making some assumptions, but yours are more fundamental to the nature of the alleged moral crime here. You assume that the photographer's guilt is a valid indicator of the appropriateness of his actions at the time. Guilt, in fact, is very often felt over things we felt in retrospect we had some control over, but in fact did not. What about the fact that he had been told not to touch the victims of starvation because of the chance of disease? Even people who have performed the most noble deeds can wish they did more, and yes, even kill themselves, over feelings of guilt.

Perhaps you are correct regarding making judgements, but I think that those judgments will be worthless (mine included) without having actually been in his situation. I look at what the photographer did, and instead of seeing a reprehensible act, I see a noble one. He travelled to Africa to cover a famine, and he did so, and brought awareness to the rest of the world. His photograph should shame others, but instead we look for ways to shame the photographer. We interpret the nature of what he did in a way that shifts the blame from all the people who did not act onto the person who, when all is said and done, humbled and shamed us with his photograph.

I will concede that you can find ways to blame the man, but what I see is this:

A man took a photograph that showed the world how bad the famine was, and later took his life over the guilt he felt. Whether or not he was justified, he has paid for his alleged "crime," while we, rather than use his photograph productively, the way some good will come of the situation, use it as some kind of exhibit in a dead man's trial.

-koji K.

Originally posted by yeahright


The young man listened politely, then bent down, picked up another starfish and threw it into the sea, past the breaking waves. 'It made a difference for that one.'"

www.starthrower.com...

When I first saw this thread and read the story behind it I had to just walk away. I don't judge people. Well, unless it's stupidity, and then, yeah, I'll call it stupid when it screams to be called that.

Thank you very much, yeahright. WATs to you. You summed up the feelings I had on this. Can I judge the man's soul who chose to wait 20 minutes for just the right shot of an emaciated child without anyone else to save them? No. Can I judge his decision and his inaction? I damned sure can.

If the one cannot touch our hearts to movement, the many just become an unfathomable number we can use in our defense of our continued inaction.

Thank you again, yeahright. That was the most appropriate fable that could have been proffered.

[edit on 10-30-2005 by Valhall]